Predicting outcomes following lower extremity open revascularization using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower extremity open revascularization is a treatment option for peripheral artery disease that carries significant peri-operative risks; however, outcome prediction tools remain limited. Using machine learning (ML), we developed automated algorithms that predict 30-day outcomes following lower extremity open revascularization. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular database was used to identify patients who underwent lower extremity open revascularization for chronic atherosclerotic disease between 2011 and 2021. Input features included 37 pre-operative demographic/clinical variables. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse limb event (MALE; composite of untreated loss of patency, major reintervention, or major amputation) or death. Our data were split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Using tenfold cross-validation, we trained 6 ML models. Overall, 24,309 patients were included. The primary outcome of 30-day MALE or death occurred in 2349 (9.3%) patients. Our best performing prediction model was XGBoost, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% CI) of 0.93 (0.92-0.94). The calibration plot showed good agreement between predicted and observed event probabilities with a Brier score of 0.08. Our ML algorithm has potential for important utility in guiding risk mitigation strategies for patients being considered for lower extremity open revascularization to improve outcomes.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".