Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37941068›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2023

Comparable performance of machine learning algorithms in predicting readmission and complications following total joint arthroplasty with external validation.

Hashim J F Shaikh, Mina Botros, Gabriel Ramirez, Caroline P Thirukumaran, Benjamin Ricciardi, Thomas G Myers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

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

6 authors.

Hashim J F ShaikhDepartment of Orthopaedics and Physical Performance, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. hashim_shaikh@urmc.rochester.edu.
Mina BotrosDepartment of Orthopaedics and Physical Performance, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Gabriel RamirezDepartment of Orthopaedics and Physical Performance, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Caroline P ThirukumaranDepartment of Orthopaedics and Physical Performance, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Benjamin RicciardiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Physical Performance, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Thomas G MyersDepartment of Orthopaedics and Physical Performance, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of the study was to use Machine Learning (ML) to construct a risk calculator for patients who undergo Total Joint Arthroplasty (TJA) on the basis of New York State Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) data and externally validate the calculator on a single TJA center.

methodsSeven ML algorithms, i.e., logistic regression, adaptive boosting, gradient boosting (Xg Boost), random forest (RF) classifier, support vector machine, and single and a five-layered neural network were trained on the derivation cohort. Models were trained on 68% of data, validated on 15%, tested on 15%, and externally validated on 2% of the data from a single arthroplasty center.

resultsValidation of the models showed that the RF classifier performed best in terms of 30-d mortality AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic) 0.78, 30-d readmission (AUROC 0.61) and 90-d composite complications (AUROC 0.73) amongst the test set. Additionally, Xg Boost was found to be the best predicting model for 90-d readmission and 90-d composite complications (AUC 0.73). External validation demonstrated that models achieved similar AUROCs to the test set although variation occurred in top model performance for 90-d composite complications and readmissions between our test and external validation set.

conclusionThis was the first study to investigate the use of ML to create a predictive risk calculator from state-wide data and then externally validate it with data from a single arthroplasty center. Discrimination between best performing ML models and between the test set and the external validation set are comparable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

ComplicationsDatabaseExternal validationMachine learningTotal joint arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID37941068
PMCPMC10631030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.