MACHINE LEARNING MODELS FOR PREDICTION OF POSTOPERATIVE VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM IN GYNECOLOGICAL MALIGNANT TUMOR PATIENTS

Main Article Content

Dr Tehmina Aziz
Jannat Zaib Mir
Dr Rubina Naurin
Muhammad Sajid
Tehmina Zafar
Likowsky Desir
Sreenivas Reddy Sagili

Keywords

Machine learning, venous thromboembolism, gynecological malignancies, postoperative complications, predictive modeling, Gradient Boosting, personalized medicine

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate machine learning models for predicting postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with gynecological malignant tumors.


Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 245 patients who underwent surgical treatment for gynecological malignancies between January 2015 and December 2020. Data on demographics, medical history, tumor characteristics, surgical details, and perioperative variables were collected. The occurrence of postoperative VTE within 30 days after surgery was the primary outcome.


Results: Out of the 245 patients, 25 (10.2%) developed postoperative VTE. The Gradient Boosting model exhibited the highest performance with an accuracy of 0.92, sensitivity of 0.84, specificity of 0.94, precision of 0.75, F1 score of 0.79, and an AUC-ROC of 0.91. Key predictors identified included history of VTE, tumor stage, duration of surgery, use of perioperative thromboprophylaxis, and preoperative D-dimer levels. The best-performing model was validated on an independent cohort, achieving an accuracy of 0.94, sensitivity of 0.85, specificity of 0.95, precision of 0.78, F1 score of 0.81, and an AUC-ROC of 0.93.


Conclusion: Machine learning models, especially Gradient Boosting, effectively predict postoperative VTE in gynecological malignant tumor patients, allowing for targeted prophylactic strategies. Future work should focus on prospective validation and model integration into clinical practice to enhance patient care.

Abstract 64 | pdf Downloads 0

References

1. Lin, B., Chen, F., Wu, M., Li, C., & Lin, L. (2024). Machine learning models for prediction of postoperative venous thromboembolism in gynecological malignant tumor patients. The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 50(7), 1175–1181. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.15960
2. Chen X, Hou M, Wang D. Machine learning-based model for prediction of deep vein thrombosis after gynecological laparoscopy: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jan 5;103(1):e36717. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036717. PMID: 38181264; PMCID: PMC10766224.
3. Lee SH, Oh SR, Cho YJ, et al.. Comparison of vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Women’s Health. 2019;19:83.
4. Gutzeit O, Lauterbach R, Loberman Z, et al.. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy complication: ilio-femoral deep vein thrombosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;247:270–1.
5. Carr CE, Chambers L, Jernigan AM, et al.. Short- and long-term outcomes for single-port risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with and without hysterectomy for women at risk for gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:215–21.
6. Ackroyd SA, Hernandez E, Roberts ME, et al.. Postoperative complications of epidural analgesia at hysterectomy for gynecologic malignancies: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30:1203–9
7. Wang J, Liu S. Visual information computing and processing model based on artificial neural network. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022;2022:4713311.
8. Yang T, Tian S, Wang Y, et al.. Evaluation of risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients who underwent gynecological surgery and validation of a fast-rating assessment table. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:8814–9.
9. Halawani HM, Ripley-Hager CF, Naglak MC, et al.. Venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic or robotic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch Ninety-days outcome of a 10 years’ experience. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13:1984–9.
10. Ageno W, Becattini C, Brighton T, et al.. Cardiovascular risk factors and venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2008;117:93–102.
11. Ramirez PT, Nick AM, Frumovitz M, et al.. Venous thromboembolic events in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:766–9.
12. Menze BH, Kelm BM, Masuch R, et al.. A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data. BMC Bioinf. 2009;10:213.
13. Riley, P. C., Deshpande, S. V., Ince, B. S., Hauck, B. C., O'Donnell, K. P., Dereje, R., ... & Wade, M. M. (2021, April). Random forest and long short-term memory based machine learning models for classification of ion mobility spectrometry spectra. In Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) Sensing XXII (Vol. 11749, pp. 179-187). SPIE.
14. Mascellani, A., Hoca, G., Babisz, M., Krska, P., Kloucek, P., & Havlik, J. (2021). 1H NMR chemometric models for classification of Czech wine type and variety. Food Chemistry, 339, 127852.
15. Song, M., Jung, H., Lee, S., Kim, D., & Ahn, M. (2021). Diagnostic classification and biomarker identification of Alzheimer’s disease with random forest algorithm. Brain sciences, 11(4), 453.
16. Wang, J., Yu, H., Hua, Q., Jing, S., Liu, Z., Peng, X., & Luo, Y. (2020). A descriptive study of random forest algorithm for predicting COVID-19 patients outcome. PeerJ, 8, e9945.
17. Carneiro, C. N., Gomez, F. J., Spisso, A., Silva, M. F., Santos, J. L., & Dias, F. D. S. (2023). Exploratory Analysis of South American Wines Using Artificial Intelligence. Biological Trace Element Research, 201(9), 4590-4599.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2