4,912 research outputs found

    Investigating risk factors and predicting complications in deep brain stimulation surgery with machine learning algorithms

    Get PDF
    Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery is an option for patients experiencing medically resistant neurological symptoms. DBS complications are rare; finding significant predictors requires a large number of surgeries. Machine learning algorithms may be used to effectively predict these outcomes. The aims of this study were to (1) investigate preoperative clinical risk factors, and (2) build machine learning models to predict adverse outcomes. Methods: This multicenter registry collected clinical and demographic characteristics of patients undergoing DBS surgery (n=501) and tabulated occurrence of complications. Logistic regression was used to evaluate risk factors. Supervised learning algorithms were trained and validated on 70% and 30%, respectively, of both oversampled and original registry data. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Results: Logistic regression showed that the risk of complication was related to the operating institution in which the surgery was performed (OR=0.44, confidence interval [CI]=0.25-0.78), BMI (OR=0.94,CI=0.89-0.99) and diabetes (OR=2.33,CI=1.18-4.60). Patients with diabetes were almost three times more likely to return to the operating room (OR=2.78,CI=1.31-5.88). Patients with a history of smoking were four times more likely to experience postoperative infection (OR=4.20,CI=1.21-14.61). Supervised learning algorithms demonstrated high discrimination performance when predicting any complication (AUC=0.86), a complication within 12 months (AUC=0.91), return to the operating room (AUC=0.88) and infection (AUC=0.97). Age, BMI, procedure side, gender and a diagnosis of Parkinsonโ€™s disease were influential features. Conclusions: Multiple significant complication risk factors were identified and supervised learning algorithms effectively predicted adverse outcomes in DBS surgery

    Investigating Risk Factors and Predicting Complications in Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery with Machine Learning Algorithms

    Full text link
    ยฉ 2019 Elsevier Inc. Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery is an option for patients experiencing medically resistant neurologic symptoms. DBS complications are rare; finding significant predictors requires a large number of surgeries. Machine learning algorithms may be used to effectively predict these outcomes. The aims of this study were to 1) investigate preoperative clinical risk factors and 2) build machine learning models to predict adverse outcomes. Methods: This multicenter registry collected clinical and demographic characteristics of patients undergoing DBS surgery (n = 501) and tabulated occurrence of complications. Logistic regression was used to evaluate risk factors. Supervised learning algorithms were trained and validated on 70% and 30%, respectively, of both oversampled and original registry data. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Results: Logistic regression showed that the risk of complication was related to the operating institution in which the surgery was performed (odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, confidence interval [CI] = 0.25โ€“0.78), body mass index (OR = 0.94, CI = 0.89โ€“0.99), and diabetes (OR = 2.33, CI = 1.18โ€“4.60). Patients with diabetes were almost 3ร— more likely to return to the operating room (OR = 2.78, CI = 1.31โ€“5.88). Patients with a history of smoking were 4ร— more likely to experience postoperative infection (OR = 4.20, CI = 1.21โ€“14.61). Supervised learning algorithms demonstrated high discrimination performance when predicting any complication (AUC = 0.86), a complication within 12 months (AUC = 0.91), return to the operating room (AUC = 0.88), and infection (AUC = 0.97). Age, body mass index, procedure side, gender, and a diagnosis of Parkinson disease were influential features. Conclusions: Multiple significant complication risk factors were identified, and supervised learning algorithms effectively predicted adverse outcomes in DBS surgery

    Supervised machine learning algorithms used to predict post-surgical outcomes following anterior surgical fixation of odontoid fractures

    Get PDF
    Background: Odontoid fractures have a high mortality rate, and numerous classification systems have previously predicted surgical outcomes with mixed consensus. We generated a machine learning (ML) construct to predict post-operative adverse events following anterior (ORIF) of odontoid fractures. Methods: 266 patients from the American college of surgeons-national surgical quality improvement program (ACS-NSQIP) with anterior ORIF (CPT 22318) of odontoid fractures from 2008-2018 were analyzed using ML algorithms random forest classifier (RF), gradient boosting classifier (GB), support vector machine classifier (SVM), Gaussian Naive Bayes classifier (GNB), and multi-layer perceptron classifier (MLP), and were compared to logistic regression classifier (LR). Algorithms predicted increased length of stay (LOS), need for transfusion (Transf), non-home discharge (NHD), and any adverse event (AAE). Permutation feature importance (PFI) identified risk factors. Results: ML algorithms outperformed LR. The average AUC for predicting Transf was 0.635 (accuracy=77.4%), extended LOS=0.652 (accuracy 59.6%), NHD 0.788 (accuracy=71.9%) and AAE 0.649 (accuracy 68.1%). GB performed highest for Transf (AUC=0.861), identifying operative time (PFI 0.253, p=0.016). GB and RF performed equally for NHD (AUC=0.819), highlighting preoperative hematocrit (PFI=0.157, p<0.001). GB predicted AAE (AUC=0.720) also identifying preoperative hematocrit (PFI=0.112, p<0.001). RF predicted extended LOS (AUC=0.669) highlighting preoperative hematocrit (PFI=0.049, p<0.001). Conclusions: ML outperformed LR, successfully predicting Transf, extended LOS, NHD, and AAE for anterior ORIF of odontoid fractures. Our construct may complement conventional risk stratification to reduce adverse outcomes and excess cost

    Translating data analytics into improved spine surgery outcomes: A roadmap for biomedical informatics research in 2021

    Get PDF
    STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in the use of biomedical informatics and data analytics tools in spine surgery. Yet despite the rapid growth in research on these topics, few analytic tools have been implemented in routine spine practice. The purpose of this review is to provide a health information technology (HIT) roadmap to help translate data assets and analytics tools into measurable advances in spine surgical care. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of PubMed and Google Scholar to identify publications discussing data assets, analytical approaches, and implementation strategies relevant to spine surgery practice. RESULTS: A variety of data assets are available for spine research, ranging from commonly used datasets, such as administrative billing data, to emerging resources, such as mobile health and biobanks. Both regression and machine learning techniques are valuable for analyzing these assets, and researchers should recognize the particular strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Few studies have focused on the implementation of HIT, and a variety of methods exist to help translate analytic tools into clinically useful interventions. Finally, a number of HIT-related challenges must be recognized and addressed, including stakeholder acceptance, regulatory oversight, and ethical considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Biomedical informatics has the potential to support the development of new HIT that can improve spine surgery quality and outcomes. By understanding the development life-cycle that includes identifying an appropriate data asset, selecting an analytic approach, and leveraging an effective implementation strategy, spine researchers can translate this potential into measurable advances in patient care

    How Do Spinal Surgeons Perceive The Impact of Factors Used in Post-Surgical Complication Risk Scores?

    Get PDF
    When deciding about surgical treatment options, an important aspect of the decision-making process is the potential risk of complications. A risk assessment performed by a spinal surgeon is based on their knowledge of the best available evidence and on their own clinical experience. The objective of this work is to demonstrate the differences in the way spine surgeons perceive the importance of attributes used to calculate risk of post-operative and quantify the differences by building individual formal models of risk perceptions. We employ a preference-learning method - ROR-UTADIS - to build surgeon-specific additive value functions for risk of complications. Comparing these functions enables the identification and discussion of differences among personal perceptions of risk factors. Our results show there exist differences in surgeons\u27 perceived factors including primary diagnosis, type of surgery, patient\u27s age, body mass index, or presence of comorbidities

    Compilation and Analysis of Web-Based Orthopedic Personalized Predictive Tools: A Scoping Review

    Get PDF
    Web-based personalized predictive tools in orthopedic surgery are becoming more widely available. Despite rising numbers of these tools, many orthopedic surgeons may not know what tools are available, how these tools were developed, and how they can be utilized. The aim of this scoping review is to compile and synthesize the profile of existing web-based orthopedic tools. We conducted two separate PubMed searches-one a broad search and the second a more targeted one involving high impact journals-with the aim of comprehensively identifying all existing tools. These articles were then screened for functional tool URLs, methods regarding the tool\u27s creation, and general inputs and outputs required for the tool to function. We identified 57 articles, which yielded 31 unique web-based tools. These tools involved various orthopedic conditions (e.g., fractures, osteoarthritis, musculoskeletal neoplasias); interventions (e.g., fracture fixation, total joint arthroplasty); outcomes (e.g., mortality, clinical outcomes). This scoping review highlights the availability and utility of a vast array of web-based personalized predictive tools for orthopedic surgeons. Increased awareness and access to these tools may allow for better decision support, surgical planning, post-operative expectation management, and improved shared decision-making

    Artificial Intelligence in Brain Tumour Surgeryโ€”An Emerging Paradigm

    Get PDF
    Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms have the potential to cause a paradigm shift in brain tumour surgery. Brain tumour surgery augmented with AI can result in safer and more effective treatment. In this review article, we explore the current and future role of AI in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery, including aiding diagnosis, optimising the surgical plan, providing support during the operation, and better predicting the prognosis. Finally, we discuss barriers to the successful clinical implementation, the ethical concerns, and we provide our perspective on how the field could be advanced

    ๊ฒฝ์ถ” ์ธก๋ฉด X์„  ์˜์ƒ์„ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜์œผ๋กœ ํ•œ ๊ฐ‘์ƒ์„  ์ˆ˜์ˆ  ํ™˜์ž์—์„œ ์–ด๋ ค์šด ํ›„๋‘๊ฒฝ ์˜ˆ์ธก ๋”ฅ๋Ÿฌ๋‹ ๋ชจ๋ธ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(์„์‚ฌ) -- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์˜๊ณผ๋Œ€ํ•™ ์˜ํ•™๊ณผ, 2022. 8. ์ •์ฒ ์šฐ.์˜ˆ์ƒํ•˜์ง€ ๋ชปํ•œ ์–ด๋ ค์šด ํ›„๋‘๊ฒฝ์€ ์‹ฌ๊ฐํ•œ ๊ธฐ๋„๊ด€๋ จ ํ•ฉ๋ณ‘์ฆ๊ณผ ์—ฐ๊ด€๋˜์–ด ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ํ›„ํ–ฅ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ˆ˜์ง‘๋œ ๊ฐ‘์ƒ์„  ์ˆ˜์ˆ ์„ ๋ฐ›์€ ์ด 14,135๋ช… ํ™˜์ž์˜ ๊ฒฝ์ถ” ์ธก๋ฉด X์„ ์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ์–ด๋ ค์šด ํ›„๋‘๊ฒฝ (Cormack-Lehane ๋“ฑ๊ธ‰ 3-4)๋ฅผ ์˜ˆ์ธกํ•˜๋Š” ๋”ฅ๋Ÿฌ๋‹ ๋ชจ๋ธ์„ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ ๋ฐ ๊ฒ€์ฆํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์€ ๊ธฐ์กด์˜ 6๊ฐœ์˜ ๋”ฅ๋Ÿฌ๋‹ ๋ชจ๋ธ๊ณผ ๋น„๊ตํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ ๋ชจ๋ธ์—์„œ ์–ด๋ ค์šด ํ›„๋‘๊ฒฝ ์˜ˆ์ธก์˜ ๋ฏผ๊ฐ๋„๋Š” 95.6%, ํŠน์ด๋„ 91.2%๋ฅผ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋ƒˆ๋‹ค. Area Under ROC curve์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ ๋ชจ๋ธ์—์„œ 0.972(0.955~0.988), ๊ธฐ์กด ๋ชจ๋ธ์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๊ฐ๊ฐ VGG-Net: 0.842, ResNet: 0.841, Xception: 0.863, ResNext: 0.825, DenseNet: 0.889, SENet: 0.875๋ฅผ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋ƒˆ๋‹ค. ์–ด๋ ค์šด ํ›„๋‘๊ฒฝ๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ํ•ด๋ถ€ํ•™์  ํŠน์ง•์„ ์„ค๋ช…ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ํด๋ž˜์Šค ํ™œ์„ฑํ™” ๋งต(Class Activation Map)์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ํด๋ž˜์Šค ํ™œ์„ฑํ™” ๋งต์—์„œ ์„ค๊ณจ, ์ธ๋‘ ๋ฐ ๊ฒฝ์ถ” ์ฃผ๋ณ€์ด ๊ฐ•์กฐ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•ด ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ๋œ ๋”ฅ๋Ÿฌ๋‹ ๋ชจ๋ธ์€ ๊ฒฝ์ถ” ์ธก๋ฉด X์„  ์˜์ƒ์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์–ด๋ ค์šด ํ›„๋‘๊ฒฝ ์˜ˆ์ธก์— ๋†’์€ ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค.An unanticipated difficult laryngoscopy is associated with serious airway-related complications. We here developed and validated a deep learning-based model that predicts a difficult laryngoscopy (Cormackโ€“Lehane grade 3โ€“4) from a cervical spine lateral X-ray using data from 14,135 patients undergoing thyroid surgery. The performance of our model was compared with six representative deep learning architectures. A class activation map was created to elucidate the anatomical features associated with difficult laryngoscopy. Our model showed 95.6% sensitivity and 91.2% specificity for predicting difficult laryngoscopy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of our model was 0.972 (0.955โ€’0.988), which was higher than that of other models (VGG-Net: 0.842, ResNet: 0.841, Xception: 0.863, ResNext: 0.825, DenseNet: 0.889, and SENet: 0.875, all P < 0.001). The class activation map demonstrated clear differences around the hyoid bone, pharynx, and cervical spine. The model showed excellent performance for predicting difficult laryngoscopy using a cervical spine lateral X-ray image.1. Introduction 1 2. Materials and Methods 2 2.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria 2 2.2 Anesthesia Management 2 2.3 Data Collection and Preprocessing 2 2.4 Model Building 3 2.5 Model Validation 4 2.6 Sensitivity Analysis 4 2.7 Statistical Analysis 4 3. Results 6 3.1 Dataset Construction 6 3.2 Performance of the Models 6 3.3 Sensitivity Analysis 6 4. Discussion 8 5. Conclusions 11 References 23 Abstract 26 Tables 12 [Table 1] 12 [Table 2] 13 [Table 3] 14 Figures 15 [Figure 1] 15 [Figure 2] 16 [Figure 3] 17 [Figure 4] 18 [Figure 5] 19 Supplementary Materials 20 [Supplementary Materials] 20์„
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore