Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38483388›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes of Endovascular Intervention for Patients With PAD.

Ben Li, Blair E Warren, Naomi Eisenberg, Derek Beaton, Douglas S Lee, Badr Aljabri, Raj Verma, Duminda N Wijeysundera, Ori D Rotstein, Charles de Mestral and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Predicting inferior vena cava filter complications using machine learning.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
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 at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Ben LiDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Blair E WarrenDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Naomi EisenbergDivision of Vascular Surgery, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Derek BeatonData Science & Advanced Analytics, Unity Health Toronto, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Douglas S LeeDivision of Cardiology, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Badr AljabriDepartment of Surgery, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Raj VermaSchool of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Duminda N WijeysunderaInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ori D RotsteinDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Charles de MestralDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Muhammad MamdaniInstitute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Graham Roche-NagleDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mohammed Al-OmranDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAUniversity Health Network · CAArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada) · CAKing Saud University · SARoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IESt Michael’s Hospital · IESt. Michael's Hospital · CAToronto East General Hospital · CAUnity Health Toronto

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Endovascular intervention for peripheral artery disease (PAD) carries nonnegligible perioperative risks; however, outcome prediction tools are limited. Objective: To develop machine learning (ML) algorithms that can predict outcomes following endovascular intervention for PAD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study included patients who underwent endovascular intervention for PAD between January 1, 2004, and July 5, 2023, with 1 year of follow-up. Data were obtained from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI), a multicenter registry containing data from vascular surgeons and interventionalists at more than 1000 academic and community hospitals. From an initial cohort of 262 242 patients, 26 565 were excluded due to treatment for acute limb ischemia (n = 14 642) or aneurysmal disease (n = 3456), unreported symptom status (n = 4401) or procedure type (n = 2319), or concurrent bypass (n = 1747). Data were split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Exposures: A total of 112 predictive features (75 preoperative [demographic and clinical], 24 intraoperative [procedural], and 13 postoperative [in-hospital course and complications]) from the index hospitalization were identified. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using 10-fold cross-validation, 6 ML models were trained using preoperative features to predict 1-year major adverse limb event (MALE; composite of thrombectomy or thrombolysis, surgical reintervention, or major amputation) or death. The primary model evaluation metric was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). After selecting the best performing algorithm, additional models were built using intraoperative and postoperative data. Results: Overall, 235 677 patients who underwent endovascular intervention for PAD were included (mean [SD] age, 68.4 [11.1] years; 94 979 [40.3%] female) and 71 683 (30.4%) developed 1-year MALE or death. The best preoperative prediction model was extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), achieving the following performance metrics: AUROC, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95); accuracy, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.85-0.87); sensitivity, 0.87; specificity, 0.85; positive predictive value, 0.85; and negative predictive value, 0.87. In comparison, logistic regression had an AUROC of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65-0.69). The XGBoost model maintained excellent performance at the intraoperative and postoperative stages, with AUROCs of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, ML models were developed that accurately predicted outcomes following endovascular intervention for PAD, which performed better than logistic regression. These algorithms have potential for important utility in guiding perioperative risk-mitigation strategies to prevent adverse outcomes following endovascular intervention for PAD.

Indexed as

Peripheral Arterial DiseaseAgedAlgorithmsAmputation, SurgicalArea Under CurveBenchmarkingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID38483388
PMCPMC10940965
OpenAlexW4392800286

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.