Predicting lack of clinical improvement following varicose vein ablation using machine learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».