ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Machine learning versus clinical scoring systems for predicting poor wound healing after posterior surgery for thoracolumbar tuberculosis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePostoperative poor wound healing (PWH) is a significant complication following posterior surgery for thoracolumbar tuberculosis, leading to prolonged recovery and increased healthcare costs. Traditional prognostic markers often lack precision. This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning (ML)-based models to predict PWH and compare their performance with conventional logistic regression and established clinical scoring systems.
methodA retrospective analysis of 188 patients undergoing posterior debridement and internal fixation for thoracolumbar tuberculosis was conducted. Patients were randomly partitioned into a training set (70%, n = 132) and a test set (30%, n = 56). Four predictive models were constructed: Model I (Multivariate Logistic Regression), Model II (LASSO Regression), Model III (Random Forest), and Model IV (Artificial Neural Network). The performance of these models was compared against the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) and the Naples Prognostic Score (NPS) using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA).
resultsThe incidence of PWH was analyzed alongside preoperative and intraoperative variables. LASSO regression identified six significant predictors: albumin, lymphocytes (%), C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell (WBC) count, hemoglobin, and the number of instrumented levels. Based on these features, a nomogram (Model II) was developed. In the test set, the LASSO-based model achieved the highest predictive accuracy with an AUC of 0.879, significantly outperforming the traditional logistic regression model (AUC: 0.733), the Random Forest model (AUC: 0.860), and the Artificial Neural Network (AUC: 0.840). Furthermore, the LASSO model demonstrated superior discrimination compared to clinical scoring systems (PNI: 0.760; NPS: 0.746). DCA confirmed that the LASSO-based nomogram provided the highest clinical net benefit.
conclusionThe LASSO-based nomogram demonstrated superior predictive accuracy and clinical net benefit for PWH compared to traditional regression methods and established prognostic scores. For limited clinical cohorts, penalized regression techniques effectively mitigate overfitting risks and provide robust interpretability compared to highly parameterized algorithms. This validated nomogram serves as a practical and reliable tool for early risk stratification, thereby optimizing personalized perioperative management for patients with thoracolumbar tuberculosis.
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.