Back

Machine learning model predicts new-onset deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremities after pelvic floor fracture surgery and targeted diagnosis

fu, h.; Dong, Q.; LI, G.; Zhao, K.; Hou, Z.

2025-12-04 orthopedics
10.64898/2025.12.01.25341405 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPostoperative new-onset deep vein thrombosis (PNO-DVT) of the lower extremities represents a prevalent and serious clinical complication following pelvic fractures, which substantially impedes patient rehabilitation and diminishes quality of life. Conventional risk assessment methodologies exhibit inherent limitations, rendering them inadequate for precise prediction and individualized management of DVT. In recent years, machine learning techniques have demonstrated significant advantages in data analysis, emerging as promising tools for predicting postoperative DVT risk. This study sought to investigate the predictive efficacy of machine learning models for the development of new-onset lower extremity deep vein thrombosis following pelvic fracture surgery. MethodsData from 745 patients who underwent pelvic fracture surgery at our hospital between January 2016 and December 2019 were collected. The analysis encompassed demographic information, general patient data, preoperative laboratory test results, surgical details, and scoring systems. Initially, the data were analyzed using univariate logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, and multivariate logistic regression to identify 12 independent risk factors, including age, HDL-C, and ApoB. Subsequently, the dataset was partitioned into a training set and a test set at a 7:3 ratio. Six models were employed for analysis, including logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), random forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, and AdaBoost. ConclusionComparative analysis of the six machine learning models revealed XGBoost exhibited the highest performance (AUC: 0.8633), followed by LightGBM (0.8349), random forest (0.8055), logistic regression (0.7503), SVM (0.7505), and AdaBoost (0.8179). Model sensitivity ranged from 0.3684 to 0.8421, and accuracy ranged from 0.6502 to 0.9238.

Published in Clinical Epidemiology (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

Clinical Epidemiology · published here
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 13%
13.6%
3
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.5%
4
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.8%
5
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 14%
5.9%
7
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
8
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.5%
9
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
10
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.3%
11
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.3%
12
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
13
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
14
The American Journal of Cardiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
15
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
16
BJGP Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
17
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.7%
19
Disability and Rehabilitation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
20
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
21
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
22
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
23
BioMed Research International
28 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%