Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41583840›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025

Validity and accuracy of a machine learning predictive model in the exploitation of patient-related outcomes in spine surgery.

Arthur André, Bruno Peyrou, Jean-Jacques Vignaux, Louis Boissière, Ibrahim Obeid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors.

Arthur André *Ramsay Santé, Clinique Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Paris, France.
Bruno Peyrou *Research Department, Cortexx Medical Intelligence, Paris, France.
Jean-Jacques Vignaux *Research Department, Cortexx Medical Intelligence, Paris, France.
Louis Boissière *Spine Clinic, Polyclinique Jean Villar, ELSAN Group, Bordeaux, France.
Ibrahim ObeidSpine Clinic, Polyclinique Jean Villar, ELSAN Group, Bordeaux, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lumbar spine disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. Patient selection for surgery remains highly complex, and the benefits of surgical interventions remain uncertain, potentially depending on patients' baseline health characteristics. Patient-related outcome measurements represent a standard method for assessing treatment success in lumbar surgery. The aim of this study is to prospectively validate the accuracy of a deep learning algorithm in predicting the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing lumbar surgery [minimal clinically important difference (MCID)/no-MCID]. Material and methods: This study is multicentric, longitudinal, and prospective study was conducted over a 16-month period (September 2021 to December 2022). Patients with a surgical indication for lumbar decompression were included preoperatively and enrolled in the Surgery Medical Outcomes (SuMO©) mobile application to fill in the preoperative and postoperative data. Patients were classified into two categories according to their postoperative outcomes. The MCID was defined using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), combined with the intake of opioids and the presence of motor loss in patients. These results were then compared to the prediction of the algorithm based on preoperative data to determine the accuracy of the algorithm. Results: A total of 119 patients were enrolled preoperatively, and postoperative follow-up data were obtained for 103 patients. The mean preoperative ODI was 0.43 (SD 0.17). The postoperative mean ODI was 0.28 (SD 0.18) at 1 month and 0.14 (SD 0.16) at 3 months. At 8 months, the mean postoperative ODI in the MCID group was 0.12, while it was 0.26 in the no-MCID group. The algorithm predicted the outcome with an accuracy of 81.6% (receiver operating characteristic score). Conclusion: This study confirms the validity and accuracy of the algorithm in prospectively predicting postoperative outcomes, as well as the sensitivity of the MCID definition, especially when coupled with remote, patient-centered follow-up. Artificial intelligence-based algorithms may help physicians in their future daily practice by addressing personalized patient care.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencemachine learningminimal clinically important differences (MCID)patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM)spine surgeries

Identifiers

PMID41583840
PMCPMC12827768

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.