Akash A Shah1, Sai K Devana2, Changhee Lee3, Amador Bugarin2, Elizabeth L Lord2, Arya N Shamie2, Don Y Park2, Mihaela van der Schaar3,4, Nelson F SooHoo2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, 90095, USA. aashah@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, 90095, USA. 3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Posterior cervical fusion is associated with increased rates of complications and readmission when compared to anterior fusion. Machine learning (ML) models for risk stratification of patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion remain limited. We aim to develop a novel ensemble ML algorithm for prediction of major perioperative complications and readmission after posterior cervical fusion and identify factors important to model performance. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent posterior cervical fusion at non-federal California hospitals between 2015 and 2017. The primary outcome was readmission or major complication. We developed an ensemble model predicting complication risk using an automated ML framework. We compared performance with standard ML models and logistic regression (LR), ranking contribution of included variables to model performance. RESULTS: Of the included 6822 patients, 18.8% suffered a major complication or readmission. The ensemble model demonstrated slightly superior predictive performance compared to LR and standard ML models. The most important features to performance include sex, malignancy, pneumonia, stroke, and teaching hospital status. Seven of the ten most important features for the ensemble model were markedly less important for LR. CONCLUSION: We report an ensemble ML model for prediction of major complications and readmission after posterior cervical fusion with a modest risk prediction advantage compared to LR and benchmark ML models. Notably, the features most important to the ensemble are markedly different from those for LR, suggesting that advanced ML methods may identify novel prognostic factors for adverse outcomes after posterior cervical fusion.
PURPOSE: Posterior cervical fusion is associated with increased rates of complications and readmission when compared to anterior fusion. Machine learning (ML) models for risk stratification of patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion remain limited. We aim to develop a novel ensemble ML algorithm for prediction of major perioperative complications and readmission after posterior cervical fusion and identify factors important to model performance. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent posterior cervical fusion at non-federal California hospitals between 2015 and 2017. The primary outcome was readmission or major complication. We developed an ensemble model predicting complication risk using an automated ML framework. We compared performance with standard ML models and logistic regression (LR), ranking contribution of included variables to model performance. RESULTS: Of the included 6822 patients, 18.8% suffered a major complication or readmission. The ensemble model demonstrated slightly superior predictive performance compared to LR and standard ML models. The most important features to performance include sex, malignancy, pneumonia, stroke, and teaching hospital status. Seven of the ten most important features for the ensemble model were markedly less important for LR. CONCLUSION: We report an ensemble ML model for prediction of major complications and readmission after posterior cervical fusion with a modest risk prediction advantage compared to LR and benchmark ML models. Notably, the features most important to the ensemble are markedly different from those for LR, suggesting that advanced ML methods may identify novel prognostic factors for adverse outcomes after posterior cervical fusion.
Authors: Austen David Katz; Nickolas Mancini; Teja Karukonda; Mark Cote; Isaac L Moss Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Jefferson R Wilson; Branko Kopjar; Sangwook Tim Yoon; Paul M Arnold; Eric M Massicotte; Alexander R Vaccaro; Darrel S Brodke; Christopher I Shaffrey; Justin S Smith; Eric J Woodard; Robert J Banco; Jens R Chapman; Michael E Janssen; Christopher M Bono; Rick C Sasso; Mark B Dekutoski; Ziya L Gokaslan Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Mohammed F Shamji; Chad Cook; Ricardo Pietrobon; Sean Tackett; Christopher Brown; Robert E Isaacs Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-14 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Vadim Goz; Jeffrey H Weinreb; Ian McCarthy; Frank Schwab; Virginie Lafage; Thomas J Errico Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Ahmed M Alaa; Thomas Bolton; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; James H F Rudd; Mihaela van der Schaar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Babak Saravi; Frank Hassel; Sara Ülkümen; Alisia Zink; Veronika Shavlokhova; Sebastien Couillard-Despres; Martin Boeker; Peter Obid; Gernot Michael Lang Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-03-22