Logo Medical Science Monitor

Call: +1.631.470.9640
Mon - Fri 10:00 am - 02:00 pm EST

Contact Us

Logo Medical Science Monitor Logo Medical Science Monitor Logo Medical Science Monitor

26 September 2024: Database Analysis  

Development and Internal Validation of Machine Learning to Predict Postoperative Worse Functional Status after Surgical Treatment for Thoracic Spinal Stenosis

Tun Liu12ABCE, Jia Li2D, Huaguang Qi3F, Bin Guo2B, Songchuan Zhao4CD, Baoping Zhang2F, Langbo Li5D, Gang Wu2A, Gang Wang1D*

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.945310

Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e945310

0 Comments

Abstract

0:00

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to develop and validate machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict the 30-day and 6-month risk of deteriorating functional status following surgical treatment for thoracic spinal stenosis (TSS). We aimed to provide surgeons with tools to identify patients with TSS who have a higher risk of postoperative functional decline.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The records of 327 patients with TSS who completed both follow-up visits were analyzed. Our primary endpoint was the dichotomized change in the perioperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, categorized based on whether it deteriorated or not. The models were developed using Naïve Bays, LightGBM, XGBoost, logistic regression, and random forest classification models. The model performance was assessed by accuracy and the c-statistic. ML algorithms were trained, optimized, and tested.

RESULTS: The best-performing algorithms for predicting functional decline at 30 days and 6 months after TSS surgery were XGBoost (accuracy=88.17%, c-statistic=0.83) and Naïve Bays (accuracy=86.03%, c-statistic=0.80). Both algorithms presented good calibration and discrimination in our testing data. We identified several significant predictors, including poor quality of intraoperative SSEP/MEP baseline, poor quality of preoperative SSEP, duration of symptoms, operated level, and motor dysfunction of the lower extremity.

CONCLUSIONS: The best-performing algorithms for predicting functional decline at 30 days and 6 months after TSS surgery were XGBoost (accuracy=88.17%, c-statistic=0.83) and Naïve Bays (accuracy=86.03%, c-statistic=0.80). Both algorithms presented good calibration and discrimination in our testing data. We identified several significant predictors, including poor quality of intraoperative SSEP/MEP baseline, poor quality of preoperative SSEP, duration of symptoms, operated level, and motor dysfunction of the lower extremity.

Keywords: Evoked Potentials, machine learning, Postoperative Complications

Introduction

Surgical treatment for thoracic spinal stenosis (TSS) is a high-risk procedure and confers a high risk for intraoperative neurological injury and postoperative functional decline [1–3]. The corresponding symptoms can range from muscle weakness to paraplegia, or even paraparesis [2]. The prevention of worse functional status after surgery was our goal [2].

Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) facilitates early detection of neurological injuries by providing real-time spinal signals [4]. Multimodal IONM, by combining somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) and motor-evoked potentials (MEP), presented excellent diagnostic [5,6] and moderate prognostic [6,7] value in TSS decompression surgery in our previous studies [6,8]. The quality of preoperative SSEP correlates well with the postoperative neurological recovery ratio in cervical spinal surgery [9,10]. MEP baseline quality was associated with postoperative prognosis [11]. However, there are limited data on the reliability of using the intraoperative SSSEP/MEP baseline for predicting postoperative neurological prognosis in TSS decompression surgery.

Furthermore, machine learning (ML) models have been shown to be effective in predicting postoperative functional improvement [12] or deterioration [13] in patients who underwent cervical and lumbar spinal surgery. However, due to the rarity of TSS and relative lack of clinical experience, there is limited literature on determining the predictive value and the corresponding predictors of worse functional status in TSS patients by ML algorithms containing multimodal IONM variables. Accurately identifying patients with TSS at higher risk for postoperative functional decline can be beneficial, facilitating more transparent communication regarding the risks associated with the surgery, as well as expectations for postoperative rehabilitation and planning.

Therefore, our primary endpoint was the development and validation of ML algorithms to predict worse functional status for patients who underwent surgical treatment for TSS. We also aimed to identify important predictors associated with postoperative functional decline. Our secondary endpoint was the prediction of postoperative neurological status assessed by the JOA score.

Material and Methods

ETHICS AND PATIENTS:

Our study was deemed exempt by the Ethics Committee and the Institutional Review Board of our hospital, as it solely relied on our de-identified retrospective research and the corresponding functional databases (IRB number 202201007l; registration at ChineseClinicalTrialRegistry.cn [ChiCTR2000032155]), and we did not change any standard clinical practice. All procedures remained strictly under the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration.

A total of 432 patients in our hospital who underwent surgical treatment for TSS between March 2010 and March 2022 were retrospectively identified in our electronic health record. Our inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age >18 years; (2) an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status between I and III; and (3) radiologic findings showed evidence of thoracic spinal compression or stenosis. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients lacked IONM data (either preoperative SSEP or intraoperative SSEP/MEP baseline); (2) patients lost to 30-day and 6-month follow-up visits; (3) patients had stroke with residual neurological disorders or co-existing cervical and/or lumbar spinal disorders; (4) history of thoracic spinal surgeries; and (5) patients had more than 30% missing data.

ACQUISITION OF SSEP AND MEP: We chose the anterior tibialis or abductor hallucis muscles [11] to obtain MEP waveforms. Parameters for acquiring MEP signals were as follows: constant voltage of 220–360 V, multiple trains of 5–8 pulses, and duration of 300 μs. We set the bandpass filter between 10 and 1500 Hz. The time base was 100 ms.

The posterior tibial nerve was chosen to record SSEP signals. Parameters for obtaining SSEP were set as follows. The posterior tibial nerves were stimulated at 25 mA. Single-pulse stimulation was performed with a frequency of 1 Hz, and the duration was 200 μs. Furthermore, we placed surface-stimulating electrodes at the ankles. Needle electrodes were placed for signal recording according to the international 10–20 system of electrode placement.

On the day before surgery, only SSEP was collected in our electrophysiological center, which we defined as preoperative SSEP. However, we did not acquire MEP at the same time, since patients cannot tolerate transcranial MEP recordings without general anesthesia or proper sedation.

During TSS surgery, intraoperative SSEP and MEP baseline signals were acquired after the paraspinal muscle was exposed, and we defined them as multi-modal IONM baseline waveforms [14].

CRITERIA FOR THE POOR QUALITY OF IONM BASELINE WAVEFORMS: A poor SSEP waveform was defined as abnormal latency or amplitude or absent waveform, type III and type IV, according to Hu et al [9]. Furthermore, an amplitude less than 3.6 μV or absent waveform was described as a poor MEP [11,15].

A simultaneous abnormality in SSEP and MEP was defined as poor quality of SSEP and MEP, and an abnormality in either or both modalities was defined as poor quality of SSEP or MEP [16].

PREDICTIVE VARIABLES: The following data were collected as variables (Table 1): demographic data (age >50 years vs ≤50 years [reference]), sex (male vs female [reference]), body mass index ([BMI] >24 vs ≤24 [reference]), smoking history (yes vs no [reference]), previous spine surgery history (yes vs no [reference]), clinical symptoms and signs before the surgery with the preoperative JOA score (mild ≥16 [reference], moderate <16 and >12, and severe ≤12) [17], ambulatory status (assistance vs independent [reference]) [13], preoperative neurological deficits, including bladder deficit (yes vs no [reference]) [18], sensory deficit (yes vs no [reference]), and motor deficit in the lower extremities (yes vs no [reference]). The motor deficit was defined as manual muscle testing grade [19] of the lower extremities less than or equal to grade III [11], duration of symptoms (>6 months vs ≤6 months [reference]), operated level (T1–T4, T5–T8, and T9–T11 [reference]) [1], number of decompression levels involved (3 or more levels vs 1 or 2 levels [reference]), bleeding loss (≥400 mL vs <400 mL) [5], poor quality of preoperative SSEP (yes vs no [reference]) [16], and poor quality of intraoperative SSEP and/or MEP baseline (yes vs no [reference]), including poor quality of SSEP and MEP (n=13), poor quality of SSEP or MEP (n=63), and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, cerebral vascular disease, acute coronary disease, use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet drugs).

We defined intraoperative variables as follows: number of decompression levels involved, bleeding loss, and poor quality of intraoperative SSEP and/or MEP baseline. Other variables were defined as preoperative variables. Furthermore, the cutoff values of the demographic variables and intraoperative variables were judged to be clinically appropriate by all the authors [5] (eg, bleeding loss and duration of symptoms).

OUTCOMES MEASURES:

Our outcome was the dichotomized change in perioperative JOA score according to whether it deteriorated (worse functional status) [13] or did not deteriorate. It was evaluated by comparing pre- and postoperative physical examination findings and JOA scores at the following 3 time points: before surgery, 30 days after surgery, and 6 months after surgery.

ENDPOINTS:

The primary endpoint was the development and validation of an ML model to predict whether worse functional status would be present after TSS surgery at the 2 follow-ups, and the determination of the associated predictors of postoperative functional decline. The secondary endpoint was the prediction of postoperative neurological function measured by the JOA score.

Binary classification models were used to predict whether worse functional status was developed, and regression models were used to predict postoperative JOA scores. To assess the performance for worse functional status predicting models, the c-statistic and accuracy were calculated. Furthermore, to assess the performance for postoperative JOA score predicting models, the coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were used.

GUIDELINES: We followed the TRIPOD 22-item checklist [20] and guidelines for ML predictive models [21].

DATA PROCESSING: We split the eligible patients into training (70%) and testing (30%) sets. The training set was used for algorithm training. The independent testing set was used to assess the performance of the models. To prevent overfitting, we removed predictors with less than 10 positive samples [21]. We used multiple imputation algorithms to replace the missing data [22]. All of the variables were entered into the random forest algorithm, and a subset of features was identified by recursive feature selection in our final ML model. After using the recursive feature elimination method, ML model performance did not improve. All independent variables were incorporated into the ML model to maximize performance [12].

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE ML MODELS:

Two main models were developed. In model A, only preoperative variables were used. In model B, preoperative variables and intraoperative variables were implemented in the model.

We used the binary classification models Naïve Bays, LightGBM, XGBoost, logistic regression, and random forest to predict whether worse functional developed. The calibration and discrimination of the model were internally validated by 10-fold cross-validation [23]. Furthermore, we used the regression models Naïve Bays, LightGBM, XGBoost, logistic regression, random forest, and Elastic Net to predict postoperative JOA scores at the 2 follow-up visits.

We assessed ML model performance by using the Scikit-learn library by discrimination (accuracy, c-statistic), calibration, and overall performance (Brier score). We performed all ML algorithms for data analysis in Python 3.6 (Python Software Foundation, Wilmington, DE, USA). The hyperparameters of the model were optimized automatically by Optuna. R2, RMSE, and MAE were used to compare the performance of our regression models.

After hyperparameters tuning, we selected the best-performing model based on the c-statistic. Then, the model was assessed on the test set for internal validation.

Results and Evaluations

STUDY POPULATION:

A total of 433 patients who underwent TSS surgery were identified. However, 106 patients were excluded: 21 patients lacked IONM data, 15 patients were lost to the follow-up visits, 10 patients had coexisting cervical/lumbar spinal disorders, 10 patients had a stroke history with residual neurological disorders, 7 patients had a history of spinal surgery, 3 patients had an ASA status of IV or V, and 40 patients had more than 30% missing data. Finally, a total of 327 patients with TSS in our hospital who underwent surgical treatment for TSS between March 2010 and March 2022 were retrospectively identified in our electronic health record. Forty-seven (14.4%) patients were diagnosed with thoracic disc herniation, 20 (6.1%) with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, 224 (68.5%) with ossification of the ligamentum flavum, and 36 (11.0%) with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and ossification of the ligamentum flavum. Of the eligible 327 patients, 228 were randomly allocated to the training set and 99 to the testing set. Figure 1 shows the flowchart of our study. Demographic and preoperative data are described in Table 1.

Thirty-seven patients had worse functional status 30 days after surgery, and 16 patients achieved complete recovery during the 6-month follow-up. Twenty-one patients had postoperative functional decline, compared with before surgery, at the last follow-up.

ML MODEL IN PREDICTING WORSE FUNCTIONAL STATUS IN THE 2 FOLLOW-UP VISITS:

ML model performance predicting worse functional status at the 30-day and 6-month follow-up visits is summarized in Table 2.

At the 30-day and 6-month follow-up visits, random forest had the highest c-statistic (0.72, and 0.70, respectively) and accuracy (85.40%, and 81.34%, respectively) for predicting worse functional status in model A. However, when preoperative variables and intraoperative variables were implemented in the ML model (ie, model B), the best-performing model for the short-term prediction was XGBoost; its c-statistic value and accuracy increased to 0.83 and 88.17%, respectively. The optimal ML model for the long-term prediction was Naïve Bays; its c-statistic value and accuracy at the long-term prediction increased to 0.80 and 86.03%, respectively (Table 2).

Model B yielded better predictive value at the 30-day and 6-month follow-up visits. Therefore, the XGBoost algorithms in model B for predicting short-term worse functional status and the Naïve Bays algorithms in model B for predicting long-term worse functional status were selected for calibration and testing.

In internal validation (Table 3), to predict 30-day worse functional status in the XGBoost algorithm, the accuracy and c-statistic were 88.17% and 0.83, respectively. To predict 6-month worse functional status in the Naïve Bayes algorithm, the accuracy and c-statistic were 86.03% and 0.80, respectively, indicating good discriminative ability. Furthermore, both Brier scores (0.06 for the XGBoost algorithm, and 0.08 for the Naïve Bays algorithms) indicated good calibration of the predicted probabilities.

ML MODEL IN PREDICTING POSTOPERATIVE JOA SCORES IN THE 2 FOLLOW-UP VISITS:

We assessed regression model performance in predicting postoperative JOA scores by the R2, RSME, and MAE values, and summarized the results in Table 4. Random forest exhibited the highest R2 (0.74, and 0.63, respectively) for predicting postoperative JOA scores at short- and long-term follow-ups.

FEATURE IMPORTANCE:

Model B yielded the best prognostic value in predicting impending worse functional status (Table 2). Among all included features, poor quality of intraoperative SSEP/MEP baseline, poor quality of preoperative SSEP, motor dysfunction of the lower extremity, preoperative JOA score, and diabetes were identified as having the most importance in the short-term prediction ML models. Furthermore, poor quality of intraoperative SSEP/MEP baseline, poor quality of preoperative SSEP, duration of symptoms, operated level, and motor dysfunction of the lower extremity were identified as having the most importance in the long-term prediction ML models (Figure 2A, 2B).

Discussion

REASONS FOR BETTER PERFORMANCE OF THE ML MODELS:

A predictive model with a c-statistic between 0.80 and 0.89 is good, and between 0.70 and 0.79 is fair [24]. Khan et al [25] reported that the highest c-statistic was 0.74 when predicting worse functional status in surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Maki et al [12] stated that the highest c-statistic was 0.75 when predicting neurological improvement after cervical spine surgery.

However, in our study, the highest c-statistic values for predicting short- and long-term postoperative functional decline were good. The reasons we achieved better performance of the ML models are probably multi-factorial. First, compared with cervical spine surgery, TSS is a high-risk procedure. The diameter of the thoracic cord is much smaller, which results in reduced blood supply at this level, making it more susceptible to intraoperative injuries and potentially worse functional outcomes [1]. Therefore, it is a necessity to perform TSS surgery under IONM to prevent and mitigate neurological injuries. In contrast, cervical spinal surgery is generally regarded as a lower-risk procedure. Previous studies have demonstrated that cervical spinal surgery without IONM can reduce the medical cost without adversely increasing neurological deterioration [26]. As a result, the authors [12,25] did not include IONM parameters as variables in their model development. Second, combined MEP with SSEP has a complementary role in providing real-time signal feedback from the spinal cord [5–7]. Furthermore, multimodal IONM has shown superior diagnostic accuracy [16,27,28] in detecting impending worse functional status and prognostic value [7] in predicting neurological recovery. Especially in high-risk spinal surgery, the sensitivity and specificity of IONM by combining SSEP and MEP are excellent [29]. Third, previous studies demonstrated that abnormalities in the preoperative SSEP baseline waveform can predict the progression of spinal myelopathy [9,10]. Poor quality of MEP baseline was correlated with worse postoperative prognosis [11]. Fourth, patients exhibiting poor quality in intraoperative SSEP/MEP baseline are more vulnerable to developing postoperative functional decline, due to a corticospinal tract with more damage before the operation that is less resilient against intraoperative hypotension, hypoperfusion, or neurologic injuries [30].

REASONS FOR BETTER PERFORMANCE OF MODEL B:

Although intraoperative SSEP baseline latency was longer than preoperative SSEP latency (P<0.05), no significant difference was found in amplitude between the 2 groups, as shown inTable 5. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in the number of normal and abnormal SSEP waveforms between the 2 groups (Table 6).

SSEP assesses only the integrity of the spinal cord dorsal and posterior column, and MEP assesses the integrity of the anterior column and the lateral cord [31]. Moreover, changes in SSEP lag behind changes in MEP by 5 min [32] to 33 min [33] in spinal surgeries. MEP has become the criterion standard to evaluate cortico-spinal tract function, owing to the high sensitivity and specificity and the importance of the motor function [11,34]. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that SSEP alone leads to poor predictive and prognostic value in spinal surgeries [4,35].

Therefore, the better performance of model B can be mainly attributed to the addition of the intraoperative MEP baseline.

DISTINCTION IN VARIABLE IMPORTANCE BETWEEN SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PREDICTIVE MODELS:

Orthopedic surgeons should pay special attention to variables significant in the long-term predictive model, because those variables harm the long-term spinal neurological function postoperatively.

Variables in the long-term predictive model included duration of symptom and operating level, which were not among the top 5 important variables in the short-term predictive model. Indicating those 2 variables can predict the long-term prognosis of TSS surgery. Specifically, a longer duration of symptoms suggests prolonged compression of the thoracic spinal cord, which can lead to irreversible neuronal damage, due to demyelination and necrosis of gray matter [36]. Furthermore, previous studies demonstrated that a longer symptom duration is an important predictor of long-term worse functional status after cervical spinal surgery [12,37]. Additionally, the upper- and middle-thoracic spinal cord (T1–8) has a smaller diameter of the spinal cord that receives less blood supply, making these patients less resilient to intraoperative hypo-perfusion, blood pressure fluctuation, or neurological injuries.

LIMITATIONS:

This study presents several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study, which can introduce potential bias into our data, including the patient selection, surgical indication, and follow-up time window. Second, our patients came from a single institution, which can limit the generalizability of our findings; thus, further testing with external datasets is necessary. The primary aim of this study was to provide a predictive tool for spine surgeons. Consequently, the model we internally validated will be made available for external validations. Third, the number of eligible patients was relatively small for an ML study, because TSS is a relatively rare disease clinically [28]. The small sample size can limit the optimal calibration of our models. Future investigations will focus on external validation studies with multi-institutions cohorts or even international cohorts to improve the performance of the models.

Conclusions

Our ML models yielded good prognostic value in predicting impending worse functional status in patients who underwent TSS surgery. The following variables were identified as significant predictors of worse functional status during follow-up visits: poor quality of intraoperative SSEP/MEP baseline, motor dysfunction of the lower extremity, poor quality of preoperative SSEP, duration of symptoms, and operated level. The surgical team can use the tool to assist with clinical decision-making and postoperative planning.

References

1. Chen G, Fan T, Yang X, The prevalence and clinical characteristics of thoracic spinal stenosis: A systematic review: Eur Spine J, 2020; 29(9); 2164-72

2. Hamilton DK, Smith JS, Sansur CA, Rates of new neurological deficit associated with spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: A report of the scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality committee: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2011; 36(15); 1218-28

3. Onishi E, Yasuda T, Yamamoto H, Outcomes of surgical treatment for thoracic myelopathy: A single-institutional study of 73 patients: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2016; 41(22); E1356-E63

4. Nuwer MR, Schrader LM, Spinal cord monitoring: Handb Clin Neurol, 2019; 160; 329-44

5. Liu T, Yan L, Qi H, Diagnostic value of multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring by combining somatosensory-with motor-evoked potential in posterior decompression surgery for thoracic spinal stenosis: Front Neurosci, 2022; 16; 879435

6. Liu T, Qi H, Yan L, Variability of SSEP and MEP change criteria in thoracic spinal decompression surgery based on preoperative motor status: Spine J, 2023; 24; 506-18

7. Liu T, Qi H, Yan L, The prognostic value of intraoperative neuromonitoring by combining somatosensory and motor-evoked potentials for thoracic spinal decompression surgery in patients with neurological deficit: Spine, 2021; 54(1); 25-33

8. Liu T, Wu G, Wang W, Utility of somatosensory- and motor-evoked potential change thresholds in surgical treatment for thoracic spinal stenosis based on different pathologies: Spine J, 2024; 24(9); 1645-59

9. Hu Y, Ding Y, Ruan D, Prognostic value of somatosensory-evoked potentials in the surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008; 33(10); E305-10

10. Feng X, Hu Y, Ma X, Progression prediction of mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy by somatosensory-evoked potentials: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2020; 45(10); E560-E67

11. Kobayashi K, Imagama S, Yoshida G, Effects of preoperative motor status on intraoperative motor-evoked potential monitoring for high-risk spinal surgery: A prospective multicenter study: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2021; 46(12); E694-E700

12. Maki S, Furuya T, Yoshii T, Machine learning approach in predicting clinically significant improvements after surgery in patients with cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2021; 46(24); 1683-89

13. Khan O, Badhiwala JH, Akbar MA, Fehlings MG, Prediction of worse functional status after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: A machine learning approach: Neurosurgery, 2021; 88(3); 584-91

14. Liu T, Qin Y, Qi H, A loading dose of dexmedetomidine with constant infusion inhibits intraoperative neuromonitoring during thoracic spinal decompression surgery: A randomized prospective study: Front Pharmacol, 2022; 13; 840320

15. Muramoto A, Imagama S, Ito Z, The cutoff amplitude of transcranial motor-evoked potentials for predicting postoperative motor deficits in thoracic spine surgery: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2013; 38(1); E21-27

16. Thirumala PD, Huang J, Thiagarajan K, Diagnostic accuracy of combined multimodality somatosensory evoked potential and transcranial motor evoked potential intraoperative monitoring in patients with idiopathic scoliosis: Spine, 2016; 41(19); E1177-E84

17. Kobayashi K, Imagama S, Yoshida G, Efficacy of intraoperative intervention following transcranial motor-evoked potentials alert during posterior decompression and fusion surgery for thoracic ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: A prospective multicenter study of the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2021; 46(4); 268-76

18. Benson GS, Bladder dysfunction in the elderly: Am J Kidney Dis, 1990; 16(4); 322-23

19. Williams M, Manual muscle testing, development and current use: Phys Ther Rev, 1956; 36(12); 797-805

20. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG, Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement: BMJ, 2015; 350; g7594

21. Luo W, Phung D, Tran T, Guidelines for developing and reporting machine learning predictive models in biomedical research: A multidisciplinary view: J Med Internet Res, 2016; 18(12); e323

22. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Brindle P, Development and validation of QRISK3 risk prediction algorithms to estimate future risk of cardiovascular disease: Prospective cohort study: BMJ, 2017; 357; j2099

23. Westphal M, Brannath W, Evaluation of multiple prediction models: A novel view on model selection and performance assessment: Stat Methods Med Res, 2020; 29(6); 1728-45

24. Lopez CD, Boddapati V, Lombardi JM, Artificial learning and machine learning applications in spine surgery: A systematic review: Global Spine J, 2022; 12(7); 1561-72

25. Khan O, Badhiwala JH, Akbar MA, Fehlings MG, Prediction of worse functional status after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: A machine learning approach: Neurosurgery, 2021; 88(3); 584-91

26. Traynelis VC, Abode-Iyamah KO, Leick KM, Cervical decompression and reconstruction without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring: J Neurosurg Spine, 2012; 16(2); 107-13

27. Eggspuehler A, Sutter MA, Grob D, Multimodal intraoperative monitoring during surgery of spinal deformities in 217 patients: Eur Spine J, 2007; 16(Suppl 2); S188-96

28. Eggspuehler A, Sutter MA, Grob D, Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during surgical decompression of thoracic spinal stenosis in 36 patients: Eur Spine J, 2007; 16(Suppl 2); S216-20

29. Takahashi M, Imagama S, Kobayashi K, Validity of the alarm point in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord by the Monitoring Working Group of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research: A prospective multicenter cohort study of 1934 cases: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2021; 46(20); E1069-E76

30. Acharya S, Palukuri N, Gupta P, Kohli M, Transcranial motor evoked potentials during spinal deformity corrections-safety, efficacy, limitations, and the role of a checklist: Front Surg, 2017; 4; 8

31. Nuwer MR, Emerson RG, Galloway G, Evidence-based guideline update: Intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials: J Clin Neurophysiol, 2012; 29(1); 101-8

32. Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP, Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery: J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007; 89(11); 2440-49

33. Hilibrand ASSD, Sethuraman DV, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Comparison of transcranial electric motor and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery: J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004; 86; 1248-53

34. Kobayashi K, Imagama S, Ando K, Characteristics of cases with poor transcranial motor-evoked potentials baseline waveform derivation in spine surgery: a prospective multicenter study of the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research: Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2021; 46(22); E1211-E19

35. Skaggs DL, Choi PD, Rice C, Efficacy of intraoperative neurologic monitoring in surgery involving a vertical expandable prosthetic titanium rib for early-onset spinal deformity: J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2009; 91(7); 1657-63

36. Standring S, Gray’s anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice 41/E, 2017

37. Tetreault LA, Kopjar B, Vaccaro A, A clinical prediction model to determine outcomes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: Data from the prospective, multi-center AOSpine North America study: J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2013; 95(18); 1659-66

Tables

Table 1. Demographic, peri-operative, and intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) data of the patients (n=327).Table 2. Performance metrics of all the predictive machine learning models at the corresponding follow-up visits.Table 3. Performance metrics of the best-performing predictive ML models at the corresponding follow-up visits on the training set and the testing data, representing internal validation.Table 4. Comparison of performance of the best-performing regression models to predict postoperative JOA Score at the corresponding follow-up visits.Table 5. Comparison of preoperative somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) parameters and intraoperative SSEP baseline parameters.Table 6. Comparison of preoperative somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) waveform classification and intraoperative SSEP baseline waveform classification.Table 1. Demographic, peri-operative, and intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) data of the patients (n=327).Table 2. Performance metrics of all the predictive machine learning models at the corresponding follow-up visits.Table 3. Performance metrics of the best-performing predictive ML models at the corresponding follow-up visits on the training set and the testing data, representing internal validation.Table 4. Comparison of performance of the best-performing regression models to predict postoperative JOA Score at the corresponding follow-up visits.Table 5. Comparison of preoperative somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) parameters and intraoperative SSEP baseline parameters.Table 6. Comparison of preoperative somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) waveform classification and intraoperative SSEP baseline waveform classification.

In Press

Clinical Research  

High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry and Balloon Expulsion Test Outcomes in Functional Constipation: A Compa...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.944599  

Clinical Research  

Plaque Removal and Gingival Bleeding Using Biodegradable Toothbrushes: Salvadora persica, Bamboo, and Nylo...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.944469  

Clinical Research  

Comparative Analysis of Extended Curettage with Plate Fixation and Extended Curettage with Intramedullary N...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.945157  

Clinical Research  

Clinical Outcomes of Talus Bone Marrow Edema: Comparing Plaster Cast, Crutches, and Walking Boot Treatments

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.946072  

Most Viewed Current Articles

17 Jan 2024 : Review article   6,227,150

Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron Variant

DOI :10.12659/MSM.942799

Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799

0:00

14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research   1,908,702

Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase Levels

DOI :10.12659/MSM.937990

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990

0:00

16 May 2023 : Clinical Research   695,232

Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387

Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387

0:00

07 Jan 2022 : Meta-Analysis   260,405

Efficacy and Safety of Light Therapy as a Home Treatment for Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson Dise...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.935074

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e935074

Your Privacy

We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website, You can decise for yourself which categories you you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available. View our privacy policy.

Medical Science Monitor eISSN: 1643-3750
Medical Science Monitor eISSN: 1643-3750