Predictive Modeling and Risk Stratification of Patients With Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Farrokhian ◽  
Armine Kocharyan ◽  
Jeremy Ruthberg ◽  
Robin Piper ◽  
Alejandro Rivas ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Linsheng Wang ◽  
Yuanlin Qin ◽  
Laimin Zhu ◽  
Xiaoyu Li ◽  
Yueqin Chen ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110193
Author(s):  
Kevin Y. Wang ◽  
Ijezie Ikwuezunma ◽  
Varun Puvanesarajah ◽  
Jacob Babu ◽  
Adam Margalit ◽  
...  

Study Design: Retrospective review. Objective: To use predictive modeling and machine learning to identify patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) following posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) for degenerative spinal pathology. Methods: Patients undergoing single-level PLF in the inpatient setting were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Our outcome measure of VTE included all patients who experienced a pulmonary embolism and/or deep venous thrombosis within 30-days of surgery. Two different methodologies were used to identify VTE risk: 1) a novel predictive model derived from multivariable logistic regression of significant risk factors, and 2) a tree-based extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm using preoperative variables. The methods were compared against legacy risk-stratification measures: ASA and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using area-under-the-curve (AUC) statistic. Results: 13, 500 patients who underwent single-level PLF met the study criteria. Of these, 0.95% had a VTE within 30-days of surgery. The 5 clinical variables found to be significant in the multivariable predictive model were: age > 65, obesity grade II or above, coronary artery disease, functional status, and prolonged operative time. The predictive model exhibited an AUC of 0.716, which was significantly higher than the AUCs of ASA and CCI (all, P < 0.001), and comparable to that of the XGBoost algorithm ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: Predictive analytics and machine learning can be leveraged to aid in identification of patients at risk of VTE following PLF. Surgeons and perioperative teams may find these tools useful to augment clinical decision making risk stratification tool.


2021 ◽  
pp. OP.21.00198
Author(s):  
Chelsea K. Osterman ◽  
Hanna K. Sanoff ◽  
William A. Wood ◽  
Megan Fasold ◽  
Jennifer Elston Lafata

Emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among people receiving cancer treatment, accounting for a large proportion of spending in oncology care and negatively affecting quality of life. As oncology care shifts toward value- and quality-based payment models, there is a need to develop interventions that can prevent these costly and low-value events among people receiving cancer treatment. Risk stratification programs have the potential to address this need and optimally would consist of three components: (1) a risk stratification algorithm that accurately identifies patients with modifiable risk(s), (2) intervention(s) that successfully reduce this risk, and (3) the ability to implement the risk algorithm and intervention(s) in an adaptable and sustainable way. Predictive modeling is a common method of risk stratification, and although a number of predictive models have been developed for use in oncology care, they have rarely been tested alongside corresponding interventions or developed with implementation in clinical practice as an explicit consideration. In this article, we review the available published predictive models for treatment-related toxicity or acute care events among people receiving cancer treatment and highlight challenges faced when attempting to use these models in practice. To move the field of risk-stratified oncology care forward, we argue that it is critical to evaluate predictive models alongside targeted interventions that address modifiable risks and to demonstrate that these two key components can be implemented within clinical practice to avoid unplanned acute care events among people receiving cancer treatment.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 502-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuelei Zhao ◽  
Xiaohua Cheng ◽  
Lihui Huang ◽  
Xianlei Wang ◽  
Cheng Wen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 134 ◽  
pp. 110065
Author(s):  
William J. Riggs ◽  
Meghan M. Hiss ◽  
Varun V. Varadarajan ◽  
Jameson K. Mattingly ◽  
Oliver F. Adunka

2019 ◽  
Vol 140 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristianna Mey ◽  
Lone Percy-Smith ◽  
Maria Hallstrøm ◽  
Matilde Sandvej ◽  
Per Cayé-Thomasen

2007 ◽  
Vol 133 (2) ◽  
pp. 162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colm Madden ◽  
Mark Halsted ◽  
Jareen Meinzen-Derr ◽  
Dianna Bardo ◽  
Mark Boston ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (12) ◽  
pp. 1682-1685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Atkin ◽  
J. Fredrik Grimmer ◽  
Gary Hedlund ◽  
Albert H. Park

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document