Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38324310›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Machine Learning Models for Predicting Disability and Pain Following Lumbar Disc Herniation Surgery.

Bjørnar Berg, Martin A Gorosito, Olaf Fjeld, Hårek Haugerud, Kjersti Storheim, Tore K Solberg, Margreth Grotle

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06833099 (The Prediction of Recurrence Lumbar Disc Herniation At L5-S1 Level Through Machine Learning Models Based on Endoscopic Discectomy Via the Interlaminar Approach), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06833099 completednot on this map

The Prediction of Recurrence Lumbar Disc Herniation At L5-S1 Level Through Machine Learning Models Based on Endoscopic Discectomy Via the Interlaminar Approach

TypeobservationalSponsorJinyu ChenRan2020 to 2024Enrolled309ConditionsRecurrent Lumbar Disc HerniationArmsVAS Point and Imaging Examination
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Letter to the Editor concerning "Development of machine learning models for predicting patient-perceived benefit following lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis surgery" by Z.A. Toh, et al. (Eur Spine J; doi:10.1007/s00586-025-09304-y).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Answer to the Letter to the Editor of S.D. Dedeepya, et al. concerning "Development of machine learning models for predicting patient-perceived benefit following lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis surgery" by Z.A. Toh, et al. (Eur Spine J; doi:10.1007/s00586-025-09304-y).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Bjørnar BergCentre for Intelligent Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Martin A GorositoCentre for Intelligent Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Olaf FjeldCentre for Intelligent Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Hårek HaugerudCentre for Intelligent Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Kjersti StorheimCentre for Intelligent Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Tore K SolbergInstitute of Clinical Medicine, The Artic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Margreth GrotleCentre for Intelligent Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Lumber disc herniation surgery can reduce pain and disability. However, a sizable minority of individuals experience minimal benefit, necessitating the development of accurate prediction models. Objective: To develop and validate prediction models for disability and pain 12 months after lumbar disc herniation surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective, multicenter, registry-based prognostic study was conducted on a cohort of individuals undergoing lumbar disc herniation surgery from January 1, 2007, to May 31, 2021. Patients in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery from all public and private hospitals in Norway performing spine surgery were included. Data analysis was performed from January to June 2023. Exposures: Microdiscectomy or open discectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment success at 12 months, defined as improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of 22 points or more; Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) back pain improvement of 2 or more points, and NRS leg pain improvement of 4 or more points. Machine learning models were trained for model development and internal-external cross-validation applied over geographic regions to validate the models. Model performance was assessed through discrimination (C statistic) and calibration (slope and intercept). Results: Analysis included 22 707 surgical cases (21 161 patients) (ODI model) (mean [SD] age, 47.0 [14.0] years; 12 952 [57.0%] males). Treatment nonsuccess was experienced by 33% (ODI), 27% (NRS back pain), and 31% (NRS leg pain) of the patients. In internal-external cross-validation, the selected machine learning models showed consistent discrimination and calibration across all 5 regions. The C statistic ranged from 0.81 to 0.84 (pooled random-effects meta-analysis estimate, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.84) for the ODI model. Calibration slopes (point estimates, 0.94-1.03; pooled estimate, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06) and calibration intercepts (point estimates, -0.05 to 0.11; pooled estimate, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10) were also consistent across regions. For NRS back pain, the C statistic ranged from 0.75 to 0.80 (pooled estimate, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.79); for NRS leg pain, the C statistic ranged from 0.74 to 0.77 (pooled estimate, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76). Only minor heterogeneity was found in calibration slopes and intercepts. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the models developed can inform patients and clinicians about individual prognosis and aid in surgical decision-making.

Indexed as

Back PainIntervertebral Disc DisplacementAdultCalibrationFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedNonoxynolProspective StudiesNonoxynol

Identifiers

PMID38324310
PMCPMC10851101

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.