ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Using Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes Following Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in carotid research: a 25-year bibliometric analysis of global trends and future directions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Age-Related Anatomical Changes in Carotid Artery Stenosis and Its Impact on Postoperative Complications in Stenting and Endarterectomy.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Deep learning for cardiovascular management: optimizing pathways and cost control under diagnosis-related group models.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Surgery: A Systematic Review of Use and Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) carries important perioperative risks. Outcome prediction tools may help guide clinical decision-making but remain limited. We developed machine learning algorithms that predict 1-year stroke or death following TFCAS. METHODS AND
resultsThe VQI (Vascular Quality Initiative) database was used to identify patients who underwent TFCAS for carotid artery stenosis between 2005 and 2024. We identified 112 features from the index hospitalization (82 preoperative [demographic/clinical], 13 intraoperative [procedural], and 17 postoperative [in-hospital course/complications]). The primary outcome was 1-year postprocedural stroke or death. The data were divided into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Six machine learning models were trained using preoperative features with 10-fold cross-validation. The primary model evaluation metric was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The algorithm with the best performance was further trained using intra- and postoperative features. Model robustness was assessed using calibration plots and Brier scores. Overall, 35 214 patients underwent TFCAS during the study period and 3257 (9.2%) developed 1-year stroke or death. The best preoperative prediction model was extreme gradient boosting, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95). In comparison, logistic regression had an AUROC of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63-0.67). The extreme gradient boosting model maintained excellent performance at the intra- and postoperative stages, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), respectively. Calibration plots showed good agreement between predicted/observed event probabilities with Brier scores of 0.11 (preoperative), 0.11 (intraoperative), and 0.09 (postoperative).
conclusionsMachine learning can accurately predict 1-year stroke or death following TFCAS, performing better than logistic regression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.