ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2024
Machine learning analysis of bleeding status in venous thromboembolism patients.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Bleeding Risk in Anticoagulated Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: A Comparative Evidence Synthesis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- From Clusters to Outcomes: Machine Learning-Based Phenotyping in Intermediate-High-Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in hematology: current trends and application areas.Annals of hematology · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in clinical thrombosis and hemostasis: A review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- Direct Oral anticoagulants in pulmonary thromboembolism therapy: the generalization-individualization dilemma and the path to risk stratification-a perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anticoagulation therapy is the mainstay of therapy for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, continuing or stopping anticoagulants after the first 3 to 6 months is a difficult decision that requires ascertainment of the risk of bleeding and recurrent VTE. Despite the development of several statistical models to predict bleeding, the benefit of machine learning (ML) models has not been investigated in depth. Objectives: To assess the benefits of ML algorithms in bleeding risk evaluation in VTE patients and gain insight into their baseline information. Methods: The baseline clinical, demographic, and genotype information was collected for 2542 patients with VTE who were on extended anticoagulation therapy. Six unsupervised dimensionality reduction and clustering ML algorithms were used to visualize and cluster the data for patients with major bleeding (118 patients) and nonbleeders. Eight supervised ML algorithms were trained and compared with the previously derived clinical models using a 5-fold nested cross-validation scheme. Results: The baseline dataset for bleeders and nonbleeders showed a high degree of similarity. Two novel clusters were discovered within the dataset for bleeders based on the presence of isolated pulmonary embolism or isolated deep vein thrombosis, though the difference in bleeding risks was not statistically significant ( Conclusion: The clinical variables recorded at baseline are not distinctive enough to improve bleeding prediction beyond the performance of the existing models, and other strategies or data modalities should be considered.
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.