Predicting amputation using machine learning: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amputation is an irreversible, last-line treatment indicated for a multitude of medical problems. Delaying amputation in favor of limb-sparing treatment may lead to increased risk of morbidity and mortality. This systematic review aims to synthesize the literature on how ML is being applied to predict amputation as an outcome. OVID Embase, OVID Medline, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched from inception to March 5, 2023. 1376 studies were screened; 15 articles were included. In the diabetic population, models ranged from sub-optimal to excellent performance (AUC: 0.6-0.94). In trauma patients, models had strong to excellent performance (AUC: 0.88-0.95). In patients who received amputation secondary to other etiologies (e.g.: burns and peripheral vascular disease), models had similar performance (AUC: 0.81-1.0). Many studies were found to have a high PROBAST risk of bias, most often due to small sample sizes. In conclusion, multiple machine learning models have been successfully developed that have the potential to be superior to traditional modeling techniques and prospective clinical judgment in predicting amputation. Further research is needed to overcome the limitations of current studies and to bring applicability to a clinical setting.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".