Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33625875›Full record

ArticleClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis

A Machine Learning Approach to Predict Deep Venous Thrombosis Among Hospitalized Patients.

Logan Ryan, Samson Mataraso, Anna Siefkas, Emily Pellegrini, Gina Barnes, Abigail Green-Saxena, Jana Hoffman, Jacob Calvert, Ritankar Das

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Logan RyanDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Samson MatarasoDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Anna SiefkasDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8379-6523
Emily PellegriniDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gina BarnesDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abigail Green-SaxenaDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jana HoffmanDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jacob CalvertDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ritankar DasDascena, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Dascena (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. Standard scoring systems for DVT risk stratification often provide insufficient stratification of hospitalized patients and are unable to accurately predict which inpatients are most likely to present with DVT. There is a continued need for tools which can predict DVT in hospitalized patients. We performed a retrospective study on a database collected from a large academic hospital, comprised of 99,237 total general ward or ICU patients, 2,378 of whom experienced a DVT during their hospital stay. Gradient boosted machine learning algorithms were developed to predict a patient's risk of developing DVT at 12- and 24-hour windows prior to onset. The primary outcome of interest was diagnosis of in-hospital DVT. The machine learning predictors obtained AUROCs of 0.83 and 0.85 for DVT risk prediction on hospitalized patients at 12- and 24-hour windows, respectively. At both 12 and 24 hours before DVT onset, the most important features for prediction of DVT were cancer history, VTE history, and internal normalized ratio (INR). Improved risk stratification may prevent unnecessary invasive testing in patients for whom DVT cannot be ruled out using existing methods. Improved risk stratification may also allow for more targeted use of prophylactic anticoagulants, as well as earlier diagnosis and treatment, preventing the development of pulmonary emboli and other sequelae of DVT.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedHospitalizationHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsVenous ThrombosisYoung Adultalgorithmsdeep venous thrombosismachine learningrisk assessmentvenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID33625875
PMCPMC7907939
OpenAlexW3131041425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.