Reliability of Postoperative Free Flap Monitoring with a Novel Prediction Model Based on Supervised Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative free flap monitoring is a critical part of reconstructive microsurgery. Postoperative clinical assessments rely heavily on specialty-trained staff. Therefore, in regions with limited specialist availability, the feasibility of performing microsurgery is restricted. This study aimed to apply artificial intelligence in postoperative free flap monitoring and validate the ability of machine learning in predicting and differentiating types of postoperative free flap circulation. METHODS: Postoperative data from 176 patients who received free flap surgery were prospectively collected, including free flap photographs and clinical evaluation measures. Flap circulation outcome variables included normal, arterial insufficiency, and venous insufficiency. The Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique plus Tomek Links (SMOTE-Tomek) was applied for data balance. Data were divided into 80%:20% for model training and validation. Shapley Additive Explanations were used for prediction interpretations of the model. RESULTS: Of 805 total included flaps, 555 (69%) were normal, 97 (12%) had arterial insufficiency, and 153 (19%) had venous insufficiency. The most effective prediction model was developed based on random forest, with an accuracy of 98.4%. Temperature and color differences between the flap and the surrounding skin were the most significant contributing factors to predict a vascular compromised flap. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the reliability of a machine-learning model in differentiating various types of postoperative flap circulation. This novel technique may reduce the burden of free flap monitoring and encourage the broader use of reconstructive microsurgery in regions with a limited number of staff specialists.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".