ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Flap failure prediction in microvascular tissue reconstruction using machine learning algorithms.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of AI in Prediction and Assessment of Compromised Free Flaps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Risk prediction models for complications after flap repair surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The usefulness of artificial intelligence in breast reconstruction: a systematic review.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Pooled it
- AI Risk Prediction Tools for Autologous Breast Reconstruction.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Identifying Venous Insufficiency in Head and Neck Reconstruction Flaps Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods.Head & neck · 2026Article
- Salvage surgery for free flap failure in the maxillofacial region: a comprehensive review of principles and outcomes.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluating Scopus AI Versus Traditional Searches for Literature Review About Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Exploratory Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Tumor Risk Score (TRS) - next level risk prediction in head and neck tumor surgery.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Decoding the Impact of AI on Microsurgery: Systematic Review and Classification of Six Subdomains for Future Development.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Prediction of vascular complications in free flap reconstruction with machine learning.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Transforming breast reconstruction: the pioneering role of artificial intelligence in preoperative planning.Gland surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicrovascular tissue reconstruction is a well-established, commonly used technique for a wide variety of the tissue defects. However, flap failure is associated with an additional hospital stay, medical cost burden, and mental stress. Therefore, understanding of the risk factors associated with this event is of utmost importance.
aimTo develop machine learning-based predictive models for flap failure to identify the potential factors and screen out high-risk patients.
methodsUsing the data set of 946 consecutive patients, who underwent microvascular tissue reconstruction of free flap reconstruction for head and neck, breast, back, and extremity, we established three machine learning models including random forest classifier, support vector machine, and gradient boosting. Model performances were evaluated by the indicators such as area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. A multivariable regression analysis was performed for the most critical variables in the random forest model.
resultsPost-surgery, the flap failure event occurred in 34 patients (3.6%). The machine learning models based on various preoperative and intraoperative variables were successfully developed. Among them, the random forest classifier reached the best performance in receiver operating characteristic curve, with an area under the curve score of 0.770 in the test set. The top 10 variables in the random forest were age, body mass index, ischemia time, smoking, diabetes, experience, prior chemotherapy, hypertension, insulin, and obesity. Interestingly, only age, body mass index, and ischemic time were statistically associated with the outcomes.
conclusionMachine learning-based algorithms, especially the random forest classifier, were very important in categorizing patients at high risk of flap failure. The occurrence of flap failure was a multifactor-driven event and was identified with numerous factors that warrant further investigation. Importantly, the successful application of machine learning models may help the clinician in decision-making, understanding the underlying pathologic mechanisms of the disease, and improving the long-term outcome of patients.
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.