Predicting outcomes following open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients undergoing open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have a high risk of post-operative complications. However, there are no widely used tools to predict surgical risk in this population. We used machine learning (ML) techniques to develop automated algorithms that predict 30-day outcomes following open AAA repair. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular database was used to identify patients who underwent elective, non-ruptured open AAA repair between 2011 and 2021. Input features included 35 pre-operative demographic/clinical variables. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death). We split our data into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Using 10-fold cross-validation, 6 ML models were trained using pre-operative features with logistic regression as the baseline comparator. Overall, 3,620 patients were included. Thirty-day MACE occurred in 311 (8.6%) patients. The best performing prediction model was XGBoost, achieving an AUROC (95% CI) of 0.90 (0.89-0.91). Comparatively, logistic regression had an AUROC (95% CI) of 0.66 (0.64-0.68). The calibration plot showed good agreement between predicted and observed event probabilities with a Brier score of 0.03. Our automated ML algorithm can help guide risk-mitigation strategies for patients being considered for open AAA repair to 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".