Predicting outcomes following endovascular aortoiliac revascularization using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endovascular aortoiliac revascularization is a common treatment option for peripheral artery disease that carries non-negligible risks. Outcome prediction tools may support clinical decision-making but remain limited. We developed machine learning algorithms that predict 30-day post-procedural outcomes. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular database was used to identify patients who underwent endovascular aortoiliac revascularization between 2011-2021. Input features included 37 pre-operative demographic/clinical variables. The primary outcome was 30-day post-procedural major adverse limb event (MALE) or death. Data were split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Using 10-fold cross-validation, 6 machine learning models were trained using pre-operative features. Overall, 6601 patients were included, and 30-day MALE/death occurred in 470 (7.1%) individuals. The best-performing model was XGBoost, achieving an AUROC (95% CI) of 0.94 (0.93-0.95). In comparison, logistic regression had an AUROC (95% CI) of 0.74 (0.73-0.76). The XGBoost model accurately predicted 30-day post-procedural outcomes, 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".