Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38974487›Full record

ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024

Machine learning approach to predict venous thromboembolism among patients undergoing multi-level spinal posterior instrumented fusion.

Kevin Y Heo, Prashant V Rajan, Sameer Khawaja, Lauren A Barber, Sangwook Tim Yoon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Pulmonary Embolism Prognosis Using Nutritional and Inflammatory Indices.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    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

5 authors.

Kevin Y HeoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Prashant V RajanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sameer KhawajaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Lauren A BarberDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sangwook Tim YoonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The absence of consensus for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in spine surgery underscores the importance of identifying patients at risk. This study incorporated machine learning (ML) models to assess key risk factors of VTE in patients who underwent posterior spinal instrumented fusion. Methods: Data was collected from the IBM MarketScan Database [2009-2021] for patients ≥18 years old who underwent spinal posterior instrumentation (3-6 levels), excluding traumas, malignancies, and infections. VTE incidence (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) was recorded 90-day post-surgery. Risk factors for VTE were investigated and compared through several ML models including logistic regression, linear support vector machine (LSVM), random forest, XGBoost, and neural networks. Results: Among the 141,697 patients who underwent spinal fusion with posterior instrumentation (3-6 levels), the overall 90-day VTE rate was 3.81%. The LSVM model demonstrated the best prediction with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68. The most important features for prediction of VTE included remote history of VTE, diagnosis of chronic hypercoagulability, metastatic cancer, hemiplegia, and chronic renal disease. Patients who did not have these five key risk factors had a 90-day VTE rate of 2.95%. Patients who had an increasing number of key risk factors had subsequently higher risks of postoperative VTE. Conclusions: The analysis of the data with different ML models identified 5 key variables that are most closely associated with VTE. Using these variables, we have developed a simple risk model with additive odds ratio ranging from 2.80 (1 risk factor) to 46.92 (4 risk factors) over 90 days after posterior spinal fusion surgery. These findings can help surgeons risk-stratify their patients for VTE risk, and potentially guide subsequent chemoprophylaxis.

Indexed as

machine learning (ML)multi-level spinal posterior instrumented fusionrisk calculationrisk stratificationVenous thromboembolism (VTE)

Identifiers

PMID38974487
PMCPMC11224786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.