ArticleNeurosurgery2022
Machine Learning to Predict Successful Opioid Dose Reduction or Stabilization After Spinal Cord Stimulation.
Article in Neurosurgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence for prediction of clinical response and therapeutic value in interventional pain management: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Moving towards the use of artificial intelligence in pain management.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Spinal cord stimulation: An emerging strategy for chronic pain relief after spinal cord injury.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Revisiting the Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy Success Score using machine learning: can we do better?Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics · 2025Article
- Machine Learning in Pain Neuromodulation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Machine Learning in Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) effectively reduces opioid usage in some patients, but preoperatively, there is no objective measure to predict who will most benefit.
objectiveTo predict successful reduction or stabilization of opioid usage after SCS using machine learning models we developed and to assess if deep learning provides a significant benefit over logistic regression (LR).
methodsWe used the IBM MarketScan national databases to identify patients undergoing SCS from 2010 to 2015. Our models predict surgical success as defined by opioid dose stability or reduction 1 year after SCS. We incorporated 30 predictors, primarily regarding medication patterns and comorbidities. Two machine learning algorithms were applied: LR with recursive feature elimination and deep neural networks (DNNs). To compare model performances, we used nested 5-fold cross-validation to calculate area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsThe final cohort included 7022 patients, of whom 66.9% had successful surgery. Our 5-variable LR performed comparably with the full 30-variable version (AUROC difference <0.01). The DNN and 5-variable LR models demonstrated similar AUROCs of 0.740 (95% CI, 0.727-0.753) and 0.737 (95% CI, 0.728-0.746) ( P = .25), respectively. The simplified model can be accessed at SurgicalML.com .
conclusionWe present the first machine learning-based models for predicting reduction or stabilization of opioid usage after SCS. The DNN and 5-variable LR models demonstrated comparable performances, with the latter revealing significant associations with patients' pre-SCS pharmacologic patterns. This simplified, interpretable LR model may augment patient and surgeon decision making regarding SCS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.