ArticleHeliyon2024
A multi-center big-data approach for precise PICC-RVT prognosis and identification of major risk factors in clinical practice.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experience in treating thrombosis after adjustment of a PICC catheter.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
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
Background: The Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) is a widely used technique for delivering intravenous fluids and medications, especially in critical care units. PICC may induce venous thrombosis (PICC-RVT), which is a frequent and serious complication. In clinical practice, Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI) is regarded as the gold standard for diagnosing PICC-RVT. However, CDFI not only requires prominent time and effort from experienced healthcare professionals, but also relies on the formation and development of PICC-RVT, especially at early stages of PICC-RVT, when PICC-RVT is not apparent. A prognosis tool for PICC-RVT is crucial to bridge the gap between its diagnosis and treatment, especially in resource-limited settings, such as remote healthcare facilities. Objective: Evaluate over 14,885 models from various machine learning techniques to identify an effective prognostic model (referred to as PRAD - PICC-RVT Assessment via Deep-learning) for quantifying the risks associated with PICC-RVT. Methods: To tackle the challenges associated with PICC-RVT diagnosis, we gathered a comprehensive dataset of 5,272 patients from 27 healthcare centers across China. From a pool of 14885 models from various machine learning techniques, we systematically screened a data-driven prognostic model to quantify the risks associated with PICC-RVT. This model aims to provide objective evidence, and facilitate timely interventions. Results: The proposed model displayed exceptional predictive accuracy, achieving an accuracy of 86.4 % and an AUC of 0.837. Based on the prognosis model, we further incorporated a weight analysis to identify the major contributing factors for PICC-RVT risk during catheterization. Albumin levels, primary diagnosis, hemoglobin levels, platelet levels, and education level are emphasized as important risk factors. Conclusions: Our method excels in predicting early PICC-RVT risks, especially in asymptomatic patients. The findings in this paper offers insights into controllable PICC risk factors that could benefit vast patients and reduce disease burden through stratification and early intervention.
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.