MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401073757 · doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.101943

Predicting inferior vena cava filter complications using machine learning

2024· article· en· W4401073757 on OpenAlexafffund
Ben Li, Naomi Eisenberg, Derek Beaton, Douglas S. Lee, Leen Al‐Omran, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, Mohamad A. Hussain, Ori D. Rotstein, Charles de Mestral, Muhammad Mamdani, Graham Roche‐Nagle, Mohammed Al‐Omran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMinistry of Health, Ontario
KeywordsMedicineInferior vena cavaInferior vena cava filterFilter (signal processing)Vena cavaRadiologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSurgeryComputer visionComputer scienceThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement is associated with important long-term complications. Predictive models for filter-related complications may help guide clinical decision-making but remain limited. We developed machine learning (ML) algorithms that predict 1-year IVC filter complications using preoperative data. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was used to identify patients who underwent IVC filter placement between 2013 and 2024. We identified 77 preoperative demographic and clinical features from the index hospitalization when the filter was placed. The primary outcome was 1-year filter-related complications (composite of filter thrombosis, migration, angulation, fracture, and embolization or fragmentation, vein perforation, new caval or iliac vein thrombosis, new pulmonary embolism, access site thrombosis, or failed retrieval). The data were divided into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Six ML models were trained using preoperative features with 10-fold cross-validation (Extreme Gradient Boosting, random forest, Naïve Bayes classifier, support vector machine, artificial neural network, and logistic regression). The primary model evaluation metric was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Model robustness was assessed using calibration plot and Brier score. Performance was evaluated across subgroups based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, rurality, median Area Deprivation Index, planned duration of filter, landing site of filter, and presence of prior IVC filter placement. RESULTS: Overall, 14,476 patients underwent IVC filter placement and 584 (4.0%) experienced 1-year filter-related complications. Patients with a primary outcome were younger (59.3 ± 16.7 years vs 63.8 ± 16.0 years; P < .001) and more likely to have thrombotic risk factors including thrombophilia, prior venous thromboembolism (VTE), and family history of VTE. The best prediction model was Extreme Gradient Boosting, achieving an AUROC of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.94). In comparison, logistic regression had an AUROC of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.65). Calibration plot showed good agreement between predicted/observed event probabilities with a Brier score of 0.07. The top 10 predictors of 1-year filter-related complications were (1) thrombophilia, (2) prior VTE, (3) antiphospholipid antibodies, (4) factor V Leiden mutation, (5) family history of VTE, (6) planned duration of IVC filter (temporary), (7) unable to maintain therapeutic anticoagulation, (8) malignancy, (9) recent or active bleeding, and (10) age. Model performance remained robust across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: We developed ML models that can accurately predict 1-year IVC filter complications, performing better than logistic regression. These algorithms have potential to guide patient selection for filter placement, counselling, perioperative management, and follow-up to mitigate filter-related complications and 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic DisordersSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207