ArticlePloS one2023
Interpretable machine learning models to predict short-term postoperative outcomes following posterior cervical fusion.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Revolutionizing spinal interventions: a systematic review of artificial intelligence technology applications in contemporary surgery.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Planning for Spine Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- Design optimization of high-sensitivity PCF-SPR biosensor using machine learning and explainable AI.PloS one · 2025Article
- Machine Learning for Individualized Risk Estimation in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Neurosurgery practice · 2024Article
- Machine learning models on a web application to predict short-term postoperative outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
By predicting short-term postoperative outcomes before surgery, patients who undergo posterior cervical fusion (PCF) surgery may benefit from more precise patient care plans that reduce the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes. We developed machine learning models for predicting short-term postoperative outcomes and incorporate these models into an open-source web application in this study. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify patients who underwent PCF surgery. Prolonged length of stay, non-home discharges, and readmissions were the three outcomes that were investigated. To predict these three outcomes, machine learning models were developed and incorporated into an open access web application. A total of 6277 patients that underwent PCF surgery were included in the analysis. The most accurately predicted outcome in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was the non-home discharges with a mean AUROC of 0.812, and the most accurately predicting algorithm in terms of AUROC was the LightGBM algorithm with a mean AUROC of 0.766. The following URL will take users to the open access web application created to provide predictions for individual patients based on their characteristics: https://huggingface.co/spaces/MSHS-Neurosurgery-Research/NSQIP-PCF. Machine learning techniques have a significant potential for predicting postoperative outcomes following PCF surgery. The development of predictive models as clinically useful decision-making tools may significantly improve risk assessment and prognosis as the amount of data in spinal surgery keeps growing. Here, we present predictive models for PCF surgery that are meant to accomplish the aforementioned goals and make them publicly available.
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.