Development of Machine Learning Models for Predicting the 1‐Year Risk of Reoperation After Lower Limb Oncological Resection and Endoprosthetic Reconstruction Based on Data From the PARITY Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oncological resection and reconstruction involving the lower extremities commonly lead to reoperations that impact patient outcomes and healthcare resources. This study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model to predict this reoperation risk. METHODS: This study was conducted according to TRIPOD + AI. Data from the PARITY trial was used to develop ML models to predict the 1-year reoperation risk following lower extremity oncological resection and reconstruction. Six ML algorithms were tuned and calibrated based on fivefold cross-validation. The best-performing model was identified using classification and calibration metrics. RESULTS: The polynomial support vector machine (SVM) model was chosen as the best-performing model. During internal validation, the SVM exhibited an AUC-ROC of 0.73 and a Brier score of 0.17. Using an optimal threshold that balances all quadrants of the confusion matrix, the SVM exhibited a sensitivity of 0.45 and a specificity of 0.81. Using a high-sensitivity threshold, the SVM exhibited a sensitivity of 0.68 and a specificity of 0.68. Total operative time was the most important feature for reoperation risk prediction. CONCLUSION: The models may facilitate reoperation risk stratification, allowing for better patient counseling and for physicians to implement measures that reduce surgical risks.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".