ArticleCommunications medicine2024
Comparison of machine learning models for the prediction of hypertension in transgender patients undergoing gynecologic surgery.
Article in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Gender-Affirming Mastectomy Complications: Estimating Performance and Accuracy.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
- Comparison of machine learning models for the prediction of hypertension in transgender patients undergoing gynecologic surgery.Communications medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransgender patients face a higher burden of cardiovascular morbidity due to structural and biological stressors, particularly in low-resource settings. No studies exist comparing machine learning model development strategies for this unique patient cohort and limited literature exists comparing data/outcomes between transgender and cisgender populations.
methodsWe compare machine learning models trained solely on transgender patients against models developed on a size-matched and ratio-matched cohort of cisgender patients and a 300-fold larger, ratio-matched cohort of cisgender patients undergoing obstetric/gynecologic procedures in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2019. All models were developed to predict the outcome of hypertension. Statistical significance between models was calculated using 5-by-2 fold cross validation hypothesis testing.
resultsAmong 626,102 patients having an obstetric/gynecologic surgery, there are 1959 transgender patients of which 85,405 (13.7%) have hypertension requiring medication. Saliently, the logistic regression machine learning models trained selectively on the transgender cohort have an AUC of 0.865 (95% CI: 0.83-0.90), with an accuracy of 85% (95% CI: 0.80-0.87) compared to (p < 0.05) the logistic regression model trained on the 300-fold larger combined cohort which has an AUC of 0.861 (95% CI: 0.82-0.90), with an accuracy of 83% (95% CI: 0.80-0.87).
conclusionMachine learning models can be trained on smaller, selectively transgender populations and may perform similarly or better to predict cardiovascular outcomes in transgender patients, than models developed on predominantly cisgender patients; this can be useful in lower-resource settings with smaller-volume transgender patients.
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.