ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2023
Machine learning analyses constructed a novel model to predict recurrent thrombosis in adults with essential thrombocythemia.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of machine learning models in predicting recurrent venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
- Innovative Applications of Nanopore Technology in Tumor Screening: An Exosome-Centric Approach.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Therapeutic and diagnostic implications of exosomes as natural nanoparticles: a new paradigm in brain cancer disease management.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Overview of dyslipidemia and metabolic syndrome in myeloproliferative neoplasms.World journal of clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Exosomes: a promising avenue for cancer diagnosis beyond treatment.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study involving 318 essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients with prior thrombosis was designed to identify risk factors that were predictive of recurrent thrombosis. The whole cohort was randomly split into derivation and validation cohorts. The random forest method, support vector machine with built-in recursive feature elimination model, and logistic multivariable analysis were performed in the derivation cohort, and cardiovascular risk factor (CVF) and RBC distribution width with standard deviation (RDW-SD) were finally selected as independent predictors. Subsequently we devise a 3-tiered model (low risk: 0 points; intermediate risk: 1-1.5 points; and high risk: 2.5 points) and it showed good discrimination in all cohorts. Moreover, the model was significantly correlated with rethrombosis-free survival (rTFS) (p = 0.0007 in the derivation cohort; p = 0.0019 in the validation cohort). In the whole cohort, cytoreductive therapy was more effective than antiplatelet agents alone for 10-year rTFS (p = 0.0336). No significant difference in 10-year rTFS was observed among interferon (IFN), hydroxyurea (HU), and IFN + HU therapy (p = 0.444). The present study helps identify individuals who need close monitoring and provides valuable risk signals for recurrence in ET patients with prior thrombosis.
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.