Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37733228›Full record

Trial reportAging clinical and experimental research2023

Application of machine learning model in predicting the likelihood of blood transfusion after hip fracture surgery.

Xiao Chen, Junpeng Pan, Yi Li, Ruixin Tang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiao ChenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Suzhou Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Suzhou, 234000, Anhui, China.
Junpeng PanDepartment of Spinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266000, Shandong, China.
Yi LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Suzhou Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Suzhou, 234000, Anhui, China.
Ruixin TangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Suzhou Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Suzhou, 234000, Anhui, China. tang_9106rx@163.com.
Anhui Medical University · CNAffiliated Hospital of Qingdao University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnemiaHip FracturesBilirubinBlood TransfusionHumansMachine LearningBilirubinHip fractureMachine learning modelPostoperative blood transfusionPredictionSurgery

Identifiers

PMID37733228
OpenAlexW4386910140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.