Machine learning analysis of bleeding status in venous thromboembolism patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Anticoagulation therapy is the mainstay of therapy for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, continuing or stopping anticoagulants after the first 3 to 6 months is a difficult decision that requires ascertainment of the risk of bleeding and recurrent VTE. Despite the development of several statistical models to predict bleeding, the benefit of machine learning (ML) models has not been investigated in depth. Objectives To assess the benefits of ML algorithms in bleeding risk evaluation in VTE patients and gain insight into their baseline information. Methods The baseline clinical, demographic, and genotype information was collected for 2542 patients with VTE who were on extended anticoagulation therapy. Six unsupervised dimensionality reduction and clustering ML algorithms were used to visualize and cluster the data for patients with major bleeding (118 patients) and nonbleeders. Eight supervised ML algorithms were trained and compared with the previously derived clinical models using a 5-fold nested cross-validation scheme. Results The baseline dataset for bleeders and nonbleeders showed a high degree of similarity. Two novel clusters were discovered within the dataset for bleeders based on the presence of isolated pulmonary embolism or isolated deep vein thrombosis, though the difference in bleeding risks was not statistically significant ( P = .32). The supervised analysis showed that the ML and clinical models have similar discrimination (c-statistics, ∼62%) and calibration performance (Brier score, ∼0.045). Conclusion The clinical variables recorded at baseline are not distinctive enough to improve bleeding prediction beyond the performance of the existing models, and other strategies or data modalities should be considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".