Using machine learning to predict outcomes following transcarotid artery revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a relatively new and technically challenging procedure that carries a non-negligible risk of complications. Risk prediction tools may help guide clinical decision-making but remain limited. We developed machine learning (ML) algorithms that predict 1-year outcomes following TCAR. The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database was used to identify patients who underwent TCAR between 2016 and 2023. We identified 115 features from the index hospitalization (82 pre-operative [demographic/clinical], 14 intra-operative [procedural], and 19 post-operative [in-hospital course/complications]). The primary outcome was 1-year post-procedural stroke or death. The data was divided into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Six ML models were trained using pre-operative features with tenfold cross-validation. Overall, 38,325 patients were included (mean age 73.1 [SD 9.0] years, 14,248 [37.2%] female) and 2,672 (7.0%) developed 1-year stroke or death. The best pre-operative prediction model was XGBoost, achieving an AUROC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.92). In comparison, logistic regression had an AUROC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.66-0.70). The XGBoost model maintained excellent performance at the intra- and post-operative stages, with AUROC's (95% CI's) of 0.92 (0.91-0.93) and 0.94 (0.93-0.95), respectively. Our ML algorithm has potential for important utility in guiding peri-operative risk-mitigation strategies to prevent adverse outcomes following TCAR.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".