Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37860027›Full record

ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine

Using machine learning and big data for the prediction of venous thromboembolic events after spine surgery: A single-center retrospective analysis of multiple models on a cohort of 6869 patients.

Benjamin S Hopkins, Michael B Cloney, Ekamjeet S Dhillon, Pavlos Texakalidis, Jonathan Dallas, Vincent N Nguyen, Matthew Ordon, Najib El Tecle, Thomas C Chen, Patrick C Hsieh and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

13 authors.

Benjamin S HopkinsDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Michael B CloneyDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ekamjeet S DhillonDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Pavlos TexakalidisDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jonathan DallasDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Vincent N NguyenDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Matthew OrdonDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Najib El TecleDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Thomas C ChenDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Patrick C HsiehDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
John C LiuDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Tyler R KoskiDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Nader S DahdalehDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Venous thromboembolic event (VTE) after spine surgery is a rare but potentially devastating complication. With the advent of machine learning, an opportunity exists for more accurate prediction of such events to aid in prevention and treatment. Methods: Seven models were screened using 108 database variables and 62 preoperative variables. These models included deep neural network (DNN), DNN with synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE), logistic regression, ridge regression, lasso regression, simple linear regression, and gradient boosting classifier. Relevant metrics were compared between each model. The top four models were selected based on area under the receiver operator curve; these models included DNN with SMOTE, linear regression, lasso regression, and ridge regression. Separate random sampling of each model was performed 1000 additional independent times using a randomly generated training/testing distribution. Variable weights and magnitudes were analyzed after sampling. Results: Using all patient-related variables, DNN using SMOTE was the top-performing model in predicting postoperative VTE after spinal surgery (area under the curve [AUC] =0.904), followed by lasso regression (AUC = 0.894), ridge regression (AUC = 0.873), and linear regression (AUC = 0.864). When analyzing a subset of only preoperative variables, the top-performing models were lasso regression (AUC = 0.865) and DNN with SMOTE (AUC = 0.864), both of which outperform any currently published models. Main model contributions relied heavily on variables associated with history of thromboembolic events, length of surgical/anesthetic time, and use of postoperative chemoprophylaxis. Conclusions: The current study provides promise toward machine learning methods geared toward predicting postoperative complications after spine surgery. Further study is needed in order to best quantify and model real-world risk for such events.

Indexed as

Big datamachine learningvenous thromboembolic eventsvenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID37860027
PMCPMC10583792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.