MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775102220 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002515

Predictive Modeling for Blood Transfusion After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

2017· article· en· W2775102220 on OpenAlexaff
Wesley M. Durand, J. Mason DePasse, Alan H. Daniels

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Bank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalHematocritReceiver operating characteristicSurgeryBlood transfusionRetrospective cohort studyRandom forestCurrent Procedural TerminologyGeneralizability theoryCohortInternal medicineStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Blood transfusion is frequently necessary after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. We sought to develop predictive models for blood transfusion after ASD surgery, utilizing both classification tree and random forest machine-learning approaches. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Past models for transfusion risk among spine surgery patients are disadvantaged through use of single-institutional data, potentially limiting generalizability. METHODS: This investigation was conducted utilizing the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset years 2012 to 2015. Patients undergoing surgery for ASD were identified using primary-listed current procedural terminology codes. In total, 1029 patients were analyzed. The primary outcome measure was intra-/postoperative blood transfusion. Patients were divided into training (n = 824) and validation (n = 205) datasets. Single classification tree and random forest models were developed. Both models were tested on the validation dataset using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), which was compared between models. RESULTS: Overall, 46.5% (n = 479) of patients received a transfusion intraoperatively or within 72 hours postoperatively. The final classification tree model used operative duration, hematocrit, and weight, exhibiting AUC = 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.85) on the validation set. The most influential variables in the random forest model were operative duration, surgical invasiveness, hematocrit, weight, and age. The random forest model exhibited AUC = 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.90). The difference between the classification tree and random forest AUCs was nonsignificant at the validation cohort size of 205 patients (P = 0.1551). CONCLUSION: This investigation produced tree-based machine-learning models of blood transfusion risk after ASD surgery. The random forest model offered very good predictive capability as measured by AUC. Our single classification tree model offered superior ease of implementation, but a lower AUC as compared to the random forest approach, although this difference was not statistically significant at the size of our validation cohort. Clinicians may choose to implement either of these models to predict blood transfusion among their patients. Furthermore, policy makers may use these models on a population-based level to assess predicted transfusion rates after ASD surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations100
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207