ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
Machine learning approach to predict venous thromboembolism among patients undergoing multi-level spinal posterior instrumented fusion.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective cohort study develops and validates a machine learning model for predicting ecchymosis after total knee arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Postoperative Deep Vein Thrombosis Following Tibial Fracture Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.