ArticlePloS one2026
Machine learning-based model for predicting recanalization in isolated distal deep vein thrombosis and analysis of predictors.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- Deep learning algorithm enables lower limb venous thrombosis detection with CT venography.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIsolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) is common, yet tools for predicting poor recanalization remain limited. We aimed to develop and compare machine learning models for predicting poor recanalization in patients with IDDVT and to identify the most informative predictors.
methodsA total of 1600 patients with IDDVT were retrospectively enrolled. The dataset was randomly divided into a development set (n = 1280) and an independent test set (n = 320) using stratified sampling. Six predictive models were developed and compared: logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), multilayer perceptron (MLP), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and a Voting Ensemble. Model training and hyperparameter tuning were performed in the development set using five-fold stratified cross-validation, and optimal classification thresholds were determined using the Youden index. Model performance was evaluated by discrimination, calibration, and classification metrics, with 95% confidence intervals estimated by bootstrap resampling (10,000 iterations). SHAP analysis was applied to interpret the final model.
resultsIn the independent test set, all models showed acceptable to strong discrimination, with AUC values ranging from 0.808 to 0.908. XGBoost achieved the best overall performance, with an optimal threshold of 0.183, an AUC of 0.908 (95% CI, 0.855-0.952), a Brier score of 0.077 (95% CI, 0.058-0.096), an accuracy of 0.900 (95% CI, 0.866-0.931), a precision of 0.650 (95% CI, 0.529-0.767), a recall of 0.803 (95% CI, 0.686-0.906), an F1-score of 0.717 (95% CI, 0.615-0.806), and a specificity of 0.918 (95% CI, 0.884-0.950). The calibration intercept and slope of the XGBoost model were 0.149 (95% CI, -0.192 to 0.454) and 1.410 (95% CI, 1.098-1.809), respectively, indicating acceptable overall calibration. SHAP analysis identified D-dimer rate, provoking-factor-related variables, anticoagulant use, and age group as the most influential predictors.
conclusionAmong six candidate models, XGBoost showed the best overall performance for predicting poor recanalization in patients with IDDVT. This study establishes an interpretable machine learning-based prediction framework focused specifically on poor recanalization in IDDVT and highlights the contribution of dynamic laboratory information, particularly D-dimer rate. The model may support early risk stratification and individualized follow-up planning, but external validation is required before routine 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.