MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405802886 · doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.102162

Predicting lack of clinical improvement following varicose vein ablation using machine learning

2024· article· en· W4405802886 sur OpenAlexafffund
Ben Li, Naomi Eisenberg, Derek Beaton, Douglas S. Lee, Leen Al‐Omran, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, Mohamad A. Hussain, Ori D. Rotstein, Charles de Mestral, Muhammad Mamdani, Graham Roche‐Nagle, Mohammed Al-Omran

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Établissements canadiensUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)University of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMinistry of Health, Ontario
Mots-clésMedicineVaricose veinsAblationRadiologyMedical physicsCardiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Varicose vein ablation is generally indicated in patients with active/healed venous ulcers. However, patient selection for intervention in individuals without venous ulcers is less clear. Tools that predict lack of clinical improvement (LCI) after vein ablation may help guide clinical decision-making but remain limited. We developed machine learning (ML) algorithms that predict 1-year LCI after varicose vein ablation. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was used to identify patients who underwent endovenous or surgical varicose vein treatment for Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological (CEAP) C2 to C4 disease between 2014 and 2024. We identified 226 predictive features (111 preoperative [demographic/clinical], 100 intraoperative [procedural], and 15 postoperative [immediate postoperative course/complications]). The primary outcome was 1-year LCI, defined as a preoperative Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) minus postoperative VCSS of ≤0, indicating no clinical improvement after vein ablation. The data were divided into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Six ML models were trained using preoperative features with 10-fold cross-validation (Extreme Gradient Boosting [XGBoost], random forest, Naïve Bayes classifier, support vector machine, artificial neural network, and logistic regression). The primary model evaluation metric was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). The algorithm with the best performance was further trained using intraoperative and postoperative features. The focus was on preoperative features, whereas intraoperative and postoperative features were of secondary importance, because preoperative predictions offer the most potential to mitigate risk, such as deciding whether to proceed with intervention. Model calibration was assessed using calibration plots, and the accuracy of probabilistic predictions was evaluated with Brier scores. Performance was evaluated across subgroups based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, rurality, median Area Deprivation Index, prior ipsilateral varicose vein ablation, location of primary vein treated, and treatment type. RESULTS: Overall, 33,924 patients underwent varicose vein treatment (30,602 endovenous [90.2%] and 3322 surgical [9.8%]) during the study period and 5619 (16.6%) experienced 1-year LCI. Patients who developed the primary outcome were older, more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, and less likely to use compression therapy routinely. They also had less severe disease as characterized by lower preoperative VCSS, Varicose Vein Symptom Questionnaire scores, and CEAP classifications. The best preoperative prediction model was XGBoost, achieving an AUROC of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.95). In comparison, logistic regression had an AUROC of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.70-0.73). The XGBoost model had marginally improved performance at the intraoperative and postoperative stages, both achieving an AUROC of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.98). Calibration plots showed good agreement between predicted and observed event probabilities with Brier scores of 0.12 (preoperative), 0.11 (intraoperative), and 0.10 (postoperative). Of the top 10 predictors, 7 were preoperative features including VCSS, Varicose Vein Symptom Questionnaire score, CEAP classification, prior varicose vein ablation, thrombus in the greater saphenous vein, and reflux in the deep veins. Model performance remained robust across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: We developed ML models that can accurately predict outcomes after endovenous and surgical varicose vein treatment for CEAP C2 to C4 disease, performing better than logistic regression. These algorithms have potential for important utility in guiding patient counseling and perioperative risk mitigation strategies to prevent LCI after varicose vein ablation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,321
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,517

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,343
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic DisordersMême sujetDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous DiseasesTravaux en français237 207