Machine learning in vascular surgery: a systematic review and critical appraisal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is a rapidly advancing field with increasing utility in health care. We conducted a systematic review and critical appraisal of ML applications in vascular surgery. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to March 1, 2021. Study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. All original studies reporting ML applications in vascular surgery were included. Publication trends, disease conditions, methodologies, and outcomes were summarized. Critical appraisal was conducted using the PROBAST risk-of-bias and TRIPOD reporting adherence tools. We included 212 studies from a pool of 2235 unique articles. ML techniques were used for diagnosis, prognosis, and image segmentation in carotid stenosis, aortic aneurysm/dissection, peripheral artery disease, diabetic foot ulcer, venous disease, and renal artery stenosis. The number of publications on ML in vascular surgery increased from 1 (1991-1996) to 118 (2016-2021). Most studies were retrospective and single center, with no randomized controlled trials. The median area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.88 (range 0.61-1.00), with 79.5% [62/78] studies reporting AUROC ≥ 0.80. Out of 22 studies comparing ML techniques to existing prediction tools, clinicians, or traditional regression models, 20 performed better and 2 performed similarly. Overall, 94.8% (201/212) studies had high risk-of-bias and adherence to reporting standards was poor with a rate of 41.4%. Despite improvements over time, study quality and reporting remain inadequate. Future studies should consider standardized tools such as PROBAST and TRIPOD to improve study quality and clinical applicability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it