MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385186385 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000001498

Using Machine Learning (ML) Models to Predict Risk of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Following Spine Surgery

2023· article· en· W4385186385 on OpenAlexaff
Prerana Katiyar, Herbert Chase, Lawrence G. Lenke, Mark Weidenbaum, Zeeshan M. Sardar

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Spine Surgery A Spine Publication · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteVagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia UniversityNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineCohortLogistic regressionVenous thromboembolismMedical historyRetrospective cohort studyPopulationDecision treeComorbidityMachine learningSurgeryInternal medicineComputer scienceThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially high-risk complication for patients undergoing spine surgery. Although guidelines for assessing VTE risk in this population have been established, development of new techniques that target different aspects of the medical history may prove to be of further utility. The goal of this study was to develop a predictive machine learning (ML) model to identify nontraditional risk factors for predicting VTE in spine surgery patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A cohort of 63 patients was identified who had undergone spine surgery at a single center from 2015 to 2021. Thirty-one patients had a confirmed VTE, while 32 had no VTE. A total of 113 attributes were defined and collected via chart review. Attribute categories included demographics, medications, labs, past medical history, operative history, and VTE diagnosis. METHODS: The Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (WEKA) software was used in creating and evaluating the ML models. Six classifier models were tested with 10-fold cross-validation and statistically evaluated using t tests. RESULTS: Comparing the predictive ML models to the control model (ZeroR), all predictive models were significantly better than the control model at predicting VTE risk, based on the 113 attributes ( P <0.001). The Random Forest model had the highest accuracy of 88.89% with a positive predictive value of 93.75%. The Simple Logistic algorithm had an accuracy of 84.13% and defined risk attributes to include calcium and phosphate laboratory values, history of cardiac comorbidity, history of previous VTE, anesthesia time, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor use, antibiotic use, and antihistamine use. The J48 model had an accuracy of 80.95% and it defined hemoglobin laboratory values, anesthesia time, beta-blocker use, dopamine agonist use, history of cancer, and Medicare use as potential VTE risk factors. CONCLUSION: Further development of these tools may provide high diagnostic value and may guide chemoprophylaxis treatment in this setting of high-risk patients.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Spine Surgery A Spine PublicationSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207