Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36276886›Full record

ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2022

Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients.

Lingqi Meng, Tao Wei, Rongrong Fan, Haoze Su, Jiahui Liu, Lijie Wang, Xinjuan Huang, Yi Qi, Xuying Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Semi-Supervised Learning to Improve Generalizability of Cancer Associated-Venous Thromboembolism Risk Prediction Models.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lingqi MengXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Tao WeiHunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Rongrong FanXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Haoze SuNanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China.
Jiahui LiuHunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Lijie WangXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xinjuan HuangXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yi QiHunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xuying LiXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Central South University · CNNanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Hospitalized cancer patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no predictive model has been specifically developed for this population. Machine learning (ML) is advantageous for model development. This study was aimed at developing predictive models using three different ML algorithms and logistic regression for VTE risk among hospitalized cancer patients and comparing their predictive performance. Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted on hospitalized cancer patients at Hunan Cancer Hospital, China, between October 1, 2021, and February 30, 2022. Patients diagnosed with vein thrombosis before or after admission were excluded. Patient, tumor, treatment, and laboratory indicator information was obtained from the hospital information system. The data were randomly split into distributions of 80% for training and 20% for testing. Logistic regression and three ML algorithms-the support vector machine, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)-were used to develop the models. Model performance was compared using F1, G-mean, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, precision, recall rate, and specificity. Feature rankings were achieved based on the permutation scores of the selected features in the optimal model. Results: A total of 1100 patients (mean [SD] age, 54.75 [11.08] years; 485 [44.09%] male) were included in this study. There were 340 patients (30.9%) in the VTE group. The XGBoost model achieved the best performance with the following evaluation metrics: F1 (0.750), G-mean (0.816), AUROC (0.818), accuracy (0.845), precision (0.750), recall rate (0.750), and specificity (0.888). D-dimer level, diabetes, hypertension, pleural metastasis, and hematological malignancies were identified as the five most significant features of the XGBoost model. Conclusions: Four predictive models were developed using ML algorithms. The XGBoost model was the optimal predictive model compared with the other three models. This study indicates that ML may play an important role in VTE risk estimation among hospitalized patients with cancer and provides a reference for thromboprophylaxis.

Indexed as

CancerHospitalizationMachine learningModelVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID36276886
PMCPMC9583033
OpenAlexW4290090528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.