ArticleHead & neck2026
Identifying Venous Insufficiency in Head and Neck Reconstruction Flaps Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods.
Article in Head & neck, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of AI in Prediction and Assessment of Compromised Free Flaps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundVenous insufficiency is a major cause of flap failure in head and neck reconstruction. AI provides a reliable, convenient solution for early detection.
methodsClinical data and postoperative flap photos of head and neck cancer patients (2018-2024) at our center were retrospectively collected, categorized into normal and venous-insufficient groups. Eight machine learning classifiers and three deep learning models (ResNet, GoogleNet, Densenet) were built. SHAP and Grad-CAM visualization were used for feature analysis and validation.
resultsA total of 2575 flap images from 576 patients (2010 normal, 565 venous-insufficient) were analyzed. Random Forest performed best in machine learning (accuracy 90.25%, AUC 0.759), with SHAP identifying Hue_mean and Green_median as key features. ResNet outperformed in deep learning (accuracy 95.23%, sensitivity 84.81%, specificity 97.27%, AUC 0.940).
conclusionThe deep learning model shows good value in identifying flap venous insufficiency, serving as an auxiliary tool for postoperative monitoring.
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.