ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Predicting outcomes following endovascular aortoiliac revascularization using machine learning.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endovascular aortoiliac revascularization is a common treatment option for peripheral artery disease that carries non-negligible risks. Outcome prediction tools may support clinical decision-making but remain limited. We developed machine learning algorithms that predict 30-day post-procedural outcomes. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular database was used to identify patients who underwent endovascular aortoiliac revascularization between 2011-2021. Input features included 37 pre-operative demographic/clinical variables. The primary outcome was 30-day post-procedural major adverse limb event (MALE) or death. Data were split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Using 10-fold cross-validation, 6 machine learning models were trained using pre-operative features. Overall, 6601 patients were included, and 30-day MALE/death occurred in 470 (7.1%) individuals. The best-performing model was XGBoost, achieving an AUROC (95% CI) of 0.94 (0.93-0.95). In comparison, logistic regression had an AUROC (95% CI) of 0.74 (0.73-0.76). The XGBoost model accurately predicted 30-day post-procedural outcomes, performing better than logistic regression.
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.