A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Machine learning to predict major bleeding during anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism: possibilities and limitations. | LitMetric

Predictive tools for major bleeding (MB) using machine learning (ML) might be advantageous over traditional methods. We used data from the Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) to develop ML algorithms to identify patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) at increased risk of MB during the first 3 months of anticoagulation. A total of 55 baseline variables were used as predictors. New data prospectively collected from the RIETE were used for further validation. The RIETE and VTE-BLEED scores were used for comparisons. External validation was performed with the COMMAND-VTE database. Learning was carried out with data from 49 587 patients, of whom 873 (1.8%) had MB. The best performing ML method was XGBoost. In the prospective validation cohort the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and F1 score were: 33.2%, 93%, 10%, and 15.4% respectively. F1 value for the RIETE and VTE-BLEED scores were 8.6% and 6.4% respectively. In the external validation cohort the metrics were 10.3%, 87.6%, 3.5% and 5.2% respectively. In that cohort, the F1 value for the RIETE score was 17.3% and for the VTE-BLEED score 9.75%. The performance of the XGBoost algorithm was better than that from the RIETE and VTE-BLEED scores only in the prospective validation cohort, but not in the external validation cohort.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjh.18737DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

validation cohort
16
riete vte-bleed
12
vte-bleed scores
12
external validation
12
machine learning
8
major bleeding
8
venous thromboembolism
8
prospective validation
8
riete
6
validation
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!