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.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for venous thromboembolism risk stratification in surgical patients: a systematic review.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning approach to predict venous thromboembolism among patients undergoing multi-level spinal posterior instrumented fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.