ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
A novel Artificial Intelligence Model for Predicting Totally Implantable Venous Access Device (TIVAD)-Related Infections.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Incidence and Timing of Venous Thromboembolism After Implantable Port Placement in Cancer Patients: A Single-Centre Cohort Study.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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a model for predicting totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD)-related infections. MATERIALS &
methodsPatients who underwent placement of TIVADs between 2014 and 2023 were included and divided into a training set (n = 5465) and a validation set (n = 2341). The clinical characteristics of 7806 patients with TIVADs were analysed. Model 1 was developed using both least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and bidirectional stepwise logistic regression, whereas Model 2 was developed using only bidirectional stepwise logistic regression. Two models were compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC), decision curve analysis (DCA), clinical impact curves (CICs), area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) and calibration curves, and the better model was chosen as the final model.
resultsModel 1 included body mass index (BMI), sex, outpatient or inpatient status, tunnel length, catheter-related thrombosis (CRT), primary catheter dislodgement and age. Model 2 included sex, catheter diameter, CRT, age, outpatient or inpatient status, catheter length, primary catheter dislodgement, BMI and tumour type. Both models demonstrated clinical usefulness according to DCA and CICs. Model 2 was chosen as the final model because of its superior AIC value and calibration performance.
conclusionsWe developed and validated a model for predicting TIVAD-related infections. We recommend a 5F catheter and prophylactic antibiotics for patients with a Model 2 infection risk score above 0.026. We also suggest appropriately increasing the tunnel length, using a smaller catheter, and strictly adhering to heparin flush protocols to prevent thrombosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40854987What 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.