Observational studyScientific reports2026
Machine learning in bleeding risk assessment for low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux: a predictive model study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroudNo universally accepted model exists for predicting bleeding risk in patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux.
objectiveThis study leveraged seven machine learning algorithms to build a short-term bleeding risk prediction platform for this population.
methodsThis retrospective real-world observational study included hospitalized patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux between January 2022 and December 2023. After applying predefined criteria, the cohort were randomly split into training (70%) and validation (30%) sets. Predictors were identified using LASSO regression. Seven machine learning models, including Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Neural Network (NN), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), and CatBoost, were developed and evaluated. The best-performing model was implemented as an internal web-based bleeding risk prediction tool.
resultsAmong 1,691 hospitalized patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux, 126 (7.5%) experienced bleeding events. The cohort was randomly split into training (n = 1,184) and validation (n = 507) sets. LASSO regression identified 12 predictors, including surgical site, pre-medication INR, hemoglobin, platelet count, renal function, body mass index (BMI), indication, and comorbidities. Seven machine learning models were developed and evaluated. In the validation cohort, CatBoost achieved the best discrimination (AUC = 0.659), followed by XGBoost (AUC = 0.651) and LR (AUC = 0.622). CatBoost also demonstrated the highest accuracy (86.0%) and F1 score (0.297), with strong specificity (89.2%) but limited sensitivity (42.9%). Although all models showed robust negative predictive performance (PR-AUC > 0.93), positive predictive capacity was modest (PR-AUC < 0.20) in validation. Based on its overall performance, CatBoost was deployed as an internal web-based bleeding risk calculator.
conclusionsCatBoost emerged as the optimal model among those tested for predicting bleeding risk in patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux, demonstrating modest but superior discrimination, acceptable calibration, and favorable clinical utility. However, the model had limited ability to correctly identify patients who experienced bleeding, as indicated by low positive predictive performance. Given its high negative predictive value, it was better suited for ruling out rather than confirming bleeding risk. A web-based risk calculator based on CatBoost has been developed for internal use. Nevertheless, prospective multicenter validation is required before clinical implementation.
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.