Using Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes Following Thoracic and Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and complex endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are complex procedures that carry a significant risk of complications. While risk prediction tools can aid in clinical decision making, they remain limited. We developed machine learning algorithms to predict outcomes following TEVAR and complex EVAR. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was used to identify patients who underwent elective TEVAR and complex EVAR for noninfrarenal aortic aneurysms between 2012 and 2023. We extracted 172 features from the index hospitalization, including 93 preoperative (demographic/clinical), 46 intraoperative (procedural), and 33 postoperative (in-hospital course/complications) variables. The primary outcome was 1-year thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm life-altering event, defined as new permanent dialysis, new permanent paralysis, stroke, or death. The data were split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. We trained 6 machine learning models using preoperative features with 10-fold cross-validation. Model robustness was evaluated using calibration plots and Brier scores. RESULTS: Overall, 10 738 patients underwent TEVAR or complex EVAR, with 1485 (13.8%) experiencing 1-year thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm life-altering event. Extreme Gradient Boosting was the best preoperative prediction model, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97), compared with 0.70 (95% CI, 0.68-0.72) for logistic regression. The Extreme Gradient Boosting model maintained excellent performance at the intra- and postoperative stages, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.98) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), respectively. Calibration plots indicated good agreement between predicted/observed event probabilities, with Brier scores of 0.09 (preoperative), 0.08 (intraoperative), and 0.05 (postoperative). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models can accurately predict 1-year outcomes following TEVAR and complex EVAR, performing better than logistic regression.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".