Supervised Machine Learning for Predicting Length of Stay After Lumbar Arthrodesis: A Comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have evaluated the utility of machine learning techniques to predict and classify outcomes, such as length of stay (LOS), for lumbar fusion patients. Six supervised machine learning algorithms may be able to predict and classify whether a patient will experience a short or long hospital LOS after lumbar fusion surgery with a high degree of accuracy. METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2009 and 2018. Demographic and comorbidity information was collected for patients who underwent anterior, anterolateral, or lateral transverse process technique arthrodesis procedure; anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF); posterior, posterolateral, or lateral transverse process technique arthrodesis procedure; posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF); and posterior fusion procedure posterior spine fusion (PSF). Machine learning algorithmic analyses were done with the scikit-learn package in Python on a high-performance computing cluster. In the total sample, 85% of patients were used for training the models, whereas the remaining patients were used for testing the models. C-statistic area under the curve and prediction accuracy (PA) were calculated for each of the models to determine their accuracy in correctly classifying the test cases. RESULTS: In total, 12,915 ALIF patients, 27,212 PLIF/TLIF patients, and 23,406 PSF patients were included in the algorithmic analyses. The patient factors most strongly associated with LOS were sex, ethnicity, dialysis, and disseminated cancer. The machine learning algorithms yielded area under the curve values of between 0.673 and 0.752 (PA: 69.6% to 80.1%) for ALIF, 0.673 and 0.729 (PA: 66.0% to 81.3%) for PLIF/TLIF, and 0.698 and 0.749 (PA: 69.9% to 80.4%) for PSF. CONCLUSION: Machine learning classification algorithms were able to accurately predict long LOS for ALIF, PLIF/TLIF, and PSF patients. Supervised machine learning algorithms may be useful in clinical and administrative settings. These data may additionally help inform predictive analytic models and assist in setting patient expectations. LEVEL III: Diagnostic study, retrospective cohort study.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".