Machine Learning in Venous Thromboembolism—Why and What Next?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, despite advances in imaging and anticoagulation. VTE arises from diverse and overlapping risk factors, such as inherited thrombophilia, immobility, malignancy, surgery or trauma, pregnancy, hormonal therapy, obesity, chronic medical conditions (e.g., heart failure, inflammatory disease), and advancing age. Clinicians, therefore, face challenges in balancing the benefits of thromboprophylaxis against the bleeding risk. Existing clinical risk scores often exhibit only modest discrimination and calibration across heterogeneous patient populations. Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising tool to address these limitations. In imaging, convolutional neural networks and hybrid algorithms can detect VTE on CT pulmonary angiography with areas under the curves (AUCs) of 0.85 to 0.96. In surgical cohorts, gradient-boosting models outperform traditional risk scores, achieving AUCs between 0.70 and 0.80 in predicting postoperative VTE. In cancer-associated venous thrombosis, advanced ML models demonstrate AUCs between 0.68 and 0.82. However, concerns about bias and external validation persist. Bleeding risk prediction models remain challenging in extended anticoagulation settings, often matching conventional models. Predicting recurrent VTE using neural networks showed AUCs of 0.93 to 0.99 in initial studies. However, these lack transparency and prospective validation. Most ML models suffer from limited external validation, "black box" algorithms, and integration hurdles within clinical workflows. Future efforts should focus on standardized reporting (e.g., Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis [TRIPOD]-ML), transparent model interpretation, prospective impact assessments, and seamless incorporation into electronic health records to realize the full potential of ML in VTE.
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 | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".