ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Development and validation of machine learning models for venous thromboembolism risk assessment at admission: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Machine learning prediction models for deep vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Machine Learning in the Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- The Caprini score for venous thromboembolism risk assessment: A scoping review of applications, validation, and future directions.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Article
- Application of machine learning models in predicting the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models for assessing the risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism in cervical cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Postoperative Deep Vein Thrombosis Following Tibial Fracture Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in clinical thrombosis and hemostasis: A review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- Frontier and hotspot evolution in pulmonary embolism: A bibliometric analysis from 2004 to 2023.Medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment at admission is of great importance for early screening and timely prophylaxis and management during hospitalization. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate novel risk assessment models at admission based on machine learning (ML) methods. Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 3078 individuals were included with their Caprini variables within 24 hours at admission. Then several ML models were built, including logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). The prediction performance of ML models and the Caprini risk score (CRS) was then validated and compared through a series of evaluation metrics. Results: The values of AUROC and AUPRC were 0.798 and 0.303 for LR, 0.804 and 0.360 for RF, and 0.796 and 0.352 for XGB, respectively, which outperformed CRS significantly (0.714 and 0.180, Discussion: This study indicated that machine learning models could improve VTE risk prediction at admission compared with CRS. Among the ML models, RF was found to have superior performance and great potential in clinical practice.
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.