Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35887814›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Performance of Artificial Intelligence-Based Algorithms to Predict Prolonged Length of Stay after Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

Babak Saravi, Alisia Zink, Sara Ülkümen, Sebastien Couillard-Despres, Frank Hassel, Gernot Lang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Artificial intelligence-based analysis of associations between learning curve and clinical outcomes in endoscopic and microsurgical lumbar decompression surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors.

Babak SaraviDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, 79108 Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2298-3696
Alisia ZinkDepartment of Spine Surgery, Loretto Hospital, 79108 Freiburg, Germany.
Sara ÜlkümenDepartment of Spine Surgery, Loretto Hospital, 79108 Freiburg, Germany.
Sebastien Couillard-DespresInstitute of Experimental Neuroregeneration, Spinal Cord Injury and Tissue Regeneration Center Salzburg (SCI-TReCS), Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8486-6412
Frank HasselDepartment of Spine Surgery, Loretto Hospital, 79108 Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5618-9285
Gernot LangDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, 79108 Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0685-1909

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecompression of the lumbar spine is one of the most common procedures performed in spine surgery. Hospital length of stay (LOS) is a clinically relevant metric used to assess surgical success, patient outcomes, and socioeconomic impact. This study aimed to investigate a variety of machine learning and deep learning algorithms to reliably predict whether a patient undergoing decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis will experience a prolonged LOS.

methodsPatients undergoing treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with microsurgical and full-endoscopic decompression were selected within this retrospective monocentric cohort study. Prolonged LOS was defined as an LOS greater than or equal to the 75th percentile of the cohort (normal versus prolonged stay; binary classification task). Unsupervised learning with K-means clustering was used to find clusters in the data. Hospital stay classes were predicted with logistic regression, RandomForest classifier, stochastic gradient descent (SGD) classifier, K-nearest neighbors, Decision Tree classifier, Gaussian Naive Bayes (GaussianNB), support vector machines (SVM), a custom-made convolutional neural network (CNN), multilayer perceptron artificial neural network (MLP), and radial basis function neural network (RBNN) in Python. Prediction accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Feature importance analysis was utilized to find the most important predictors. Further, we developed a decision tree based on the Chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) algorithm to investigate cut-offs of predictors for clinical decision-making.

results236 patients and 14 feature variables were included. K-means clustering separated data into two clusters distinguishing the data into two patient risk characteristic groups. The algorithms reached AUCs between 67.5% and 87.3% for the classification of LOS classes. Feature importance analysis of deep learning algorithms indicated that operation time was the most important feature in predicting LOS. A decision tree based on CHAID could predict 84.7% of the cases.

conclusionsMachine learning and deep learning algorithms can predict whether patients will experience an increased LOS following lumbar decompression surgery. Therefore, medical resources can be more appropriately allocated to patients who are at risk of prolonged LOS.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedecompressiondeep learninglength of staymachine learningpredictionspinal stenosisspine surgery

Identifiers

PMID35887814
PMCPMC9318293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.