ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Construction and validation of a machine learning-based prediction model for venous thromboembolism in lung transplant recipients supported by ECMO.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigated risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in lung transplant recipients receiving ECMO and developed a VTE risk prediction model based on machine learning (ML). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 189 patients who underwent elective lung transplantation at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University from May 2023 to November 2024. Recursive Feature Elimination was used to analyze risk factors for VTE during ECMO after lung transplantation. Six ML models were established. Grid search combined with 5-fold cross-validation identified optimal parameters for the models. The models' predictive performance was assessed using 5-fold cross-validation. The evaluation metrics included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and its area under the curve (AUC), as well as the F1 score. Six predictive factors were included in the model construction. Results: The Random Forest model performed best. The area under the ROC of the model on the validation set was 0.895 (95% CI: 0.788-1.000); the accuracy was 89.7%, sensitivity 89.7%, specificity 89.5%, PPV 0.946%, and negative predictive value 81.0%. The calibration curve showed strong agreement between predicted probabilities and observed outcomes; decision curve analysis indicated significant clinical utility across relevant threshold probabilities. Conclusion: The ML-derived VTE risk prediction model for lung transplant patients showed strong predictive ability and clinical utility confirmed by decision curve analysis.
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.