Trial reportAging clinical and experimental research2023
Application of machine learning model in predicting the likelihood of blood transfusion after hip fracture surgery.
Trial report in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Outcome Prediction After Osteoporotic Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prediction Model Performance.Current osteoporosis reports · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning-based prediction model for postoperative blood transfusion in pediatric patients with Hirschsprung's disease.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- AI and Blood Banking: Predicting Transfusion Demand - A Systematic Review of Forecasting Approaches.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2026Review
- Perioperative Anemia and Transfusion Management in Older Adults with Osteoporotic Hip Fractures: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Emerging Strategies.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Construction of a prediction model for perioperative blood transfusion in elderly hip fracture patients: a retrospective study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- The association of life's essential 8 with prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases in adults: insights from NHANES 2007-2018.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Development of machine learning models to predict perioperative blood transfusion in hip surgery.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAnemia is one of the common adverse reactions after hip fracture surgery. The traditional method to solve anemia is allogeneic transfusion. However, the transfusion may lead to some complications such as septicemia and fever. So far, few studies have reported roles of machine learning in predicting whether blood transfusion is needed or not after hip fracture surgery. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop machine learning models to predict the likelihood of postoperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.
methodsThis study enrolled 1355 patients who underwent hip fracture surgery at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2016 to December 2021. Among all patients, 210 cases received postoperative blood transfusion. All patients were randomly divided into a training group and a testing group at a ratio of 7:3. In the training group, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine independent risk factors for the postoperative transfusion. Then, based on these independent risk factors, tenfold cross-validation method was utilized to develop five machine learning models, including logistic, multilayer perceptron (MLP), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under ROC curve (AUC), and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) were generated to evaluate the performance of the models. Calibration plot and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to test the performance, stability, and clinical applicability of the models. The models were validated using the testing group; and the ROC curve, MCC, calibration plot, and DCA curves were also generated to validate the performance, stability, and clinical applicability of the models. To further verify the robustness of the model, we randomly grabbed 70% of the samples in the testing set, performed 1000 iterations, and calculated the AUC and confidence interval of the five models. Finally, we used SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to explain these models.
resultsMultivariate logistic regression analysis showed that there were 8 independent risk factors, including age, blood transfusion history, albumin (ALB), globulin (GLO), total bilirubin (TBIL), indirect bilirubin (IBIL), hemoglobin (HB), and blood loss > 200 ml. We finally selected five independent risk factors including HB, GLO, age, IBIL, and blood loss > 200 ml. Based on these five independent risk factors, we generated six characteristic variables, namely HB, HB × HB, HB × blood loss, GLO × HB, age, age × IBIL, and established five machine learning models using a tenfold cross-validation method. In the training group, the AUC values of logistic, RF, MLP, SVM, and XGB were 0.9320, 0.8911, 0.9327, 0.9225, and 0.8825, respectively, and the average AUC was 0.9122 ± 0.0212. The MCC values were 0.65, 0.77, 0.65, 0.66, and 0.68, respectively, and the calibration plot and DCA performed well. In the testing group the AUC values of logistic, RF, MLP, SVM, and XGB were 0.8483, 0.7978, 0.8576, 0.8598, and 0.8216, respectively. The average AUC was 0.8370 ± 0.0238, and the MCC values were 0.41, 0.35, 0.40, 0.41, and 0.41, respectively. The calibration plot and DCA in the testing group also showed good performance. The AUC values and confidence intervals of the 1000-iteration model were: logistic (AUC, min confidence interval [CI]-max confidence interval [CI] 0.848, 0.804-0.903), RF (AUC, minCI-maxCI 0.797, 0.734-0.857), MLP (AUC, minCI-maxCI 0.858, 0.812-0.902), SVM (AUC, minCI-maxCI 0.859, 0.819-0.910), and XGB (AUC, minCI-maxCI 0.821, 0.764-0.894). The model performed well. Finally, according to SHAP, among all five models, HB played the most important role in model prediction and interpretation.
conclusionThe five models we developed all performed well in predicting the likelihood of blood transfusion after hip fracture surgery. Therefore, we believed that the prediction model based on machine learning had great application prospects in clinical practice, which could help clinicians better predict the risk of blood transfusion after hip fracture surgery.
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.