From Code to Clots: Applying Machine Learning to Clinical Aspects of Venous Thromboembolism Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management

Pavlina Chrysafi; Barbara Lam; Samuel Carton; Rushad Patell

doi:10.1055/a-2415-8408

Hämostaseologie, Table of Contents

Hamostaseologie 2024; 44(06): 429-445
DOI: 10.1055/a-2415-8408

Review Article

From Code to Clots: Applying Machine Learning to Clinical Aspects of Venous Thromboembolism Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management

Pavlina Chrysafi

¹Department of Medicine, Mount Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States

,

Barbara Lam

²Division of Hemostasis and Thrombosis, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

³Division of Clinical Informatics, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

,

Samuel Carton

⁴Department of Computer Science, College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, United States

,

Rushad Patell

²Division of Hemostasis and Thrombosis, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

The high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) globally and the morbidity and mortality burden associated with the disease make it a pressing issue. Machine learning (ML) can improve VTE prevention, detection, and treatment. The ability of this novel technology to process large amounts of high-dimensional data can help identify new risk factors and better risk stratify patients for thromboprophylaxis. Applications of ML for VTE include systems that interpret medical imaging, assess the severity of the VTE, tailor treatment according to individual patient needs, and identify VTE cases to facilitate surveillance. Generative artificial intelligence may be leveraged to design new molecules such as new anticoagulants, generate synthetic data to expand datasets, and reduce clinical burden by assisting in generating clinical notes. Potential challenges in the applications of these novel technologies include the availability of multidimensional large datasets, prospective studies and clinical trials to ensure safety and efficacy, continuous quality assessment to maintain algorithm accuracy, mitigation of unwanted bias, and regulatory and legal guardrails to protect patients and providers. We propose a practical approach for clinicians to integrate ML into research, from choosing appropriate problems to integrating ML into clinical workflows. ML offers much promise and opportunity for clinicians and researchers in VTE to translate this technology into the clinic and directly benefit the patients.

Keywords

venous thromboembolism - machine learning - artificial intelligence - prediction modeling

Full Text

References

References
1 Lutsey PL, Zakai NA. Epidemiology and prevention of venous thromboembolism. Nat Rev Cardiol 2023; 20 (04) 248-262
2 Sidney S, Lee C, Liu J, Khan SS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Rana JS. Age-adjusted mortality rates and age and risk-associated contributions to change in heart disease and stroke mortality, 2011-2019 and 2019-2020. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5 (03) e223872
3 Office of the Surgeon General (US); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US). 2008
4 Fanikos J, Piazza G, Zayaruzny M, Goldhaber SZ. Long-term complications of medical patients with hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost 2009; 102 (04) 688-693
5 Ferroni P, Zanzotto FM, Riondino S, Scarpato N, Guadagni F, Roselli M. Breast cancer prognosis using a machine learning approach. Cancers (Basel) 2019; 11 (03) 328
6 Sidey-Gibbons JAM, Sidey-Gibbons CJ. Machine learning in medicine: a practical introduction. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19 (01) 64
7 Chan HP, Samala RK, Hadjiiski LM, Zhou C. Deep learning in medical image analysis. Adv Exp Med Biol 2020; 1213: 3-21
8 Hirani R, Noruzi K, Khuram H. et al. Artificial intelligence and healthcare: a journey through history, present innovations, and future possibilities. Life (Basel) 2024; 14 (05) 557
9 Guetari R, Ayari H, Sakly H. Computer-aided diagnosis systems: a comparative study of classical machine learning versus deep learning-based approaches. Knowl Inf Syst 2023; 65 (10) 1-41
10 Huang S, Arpaci I, Al-Emran M, Kılıçarslan S, Al-Sharafi MA. A comparative analysis of classical machine learning and deep learning techniques for predicting lung cancer survivability. Multimedia Tools Appl 2023; 82 (22) 34183-34198
11 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M. et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and D-dimer. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135 (02) 98-107
12 Wicki J, Perrier A, Perneger TV, Bounameaux H, Junod AF. Predicting adverse outcome in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a risk score. Thromb Haemost 2000; 84 (04) 548-552
13 Pereira FC, Borysov S. Machine Learning Fundamentals. Chapter 2 - Machine Learning Fundamentals. Elsevier; 2019: 9-29
14 Schulz MA, Yeo BTT, Vogelstein JT. et al. Different scaling of linear models and deep learning in UKBiobank brain images versus machine-learning datasets. Nat Commun 2020; 11 (01) 4238
15 Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N. et al. Attention is all you need. arXiv:170603762 [cs] . 2017
16 Grinsztajn L, Oyallon E, Varoquaux G. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data? arXiv;. 2022
17 Scikit-learn. Accessed September 25, 2024 at: https://scikit-learn.org/stable/about.html#citing-scikit-learn
18 Paszke A, Gross S, Massa F. et al. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 [Internet]. Curran Associates, Inc. Curran Associates, Inc; 2019: 8024-35
19 Abadi M, Agarwal A, Barham P. et al. ensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems. arXiv 2015; 1603.04467
20 Salahuddin Z, Woodruff HC, Chatterjee A, Lambin P. Transparency of deep neural networks for medical image analysis: a review of interpretability methods. Comput Biol Med 2022; 140: 105111
21 Habehh H, Gohel S. Machine learning in healthcare. Curr Genomics 2021; 22 (04) 291-300
22 Tufail S, Riggs H, Tariq M, Sarwat AI. Advancements and challenges in machine learning: a comprehensive review of models, libraries, applications, and algorithms. Electronics (Basel) 2023; 12 (08)
23 Eckardt JN, Bornhäuser M, Wendt K, Middeke JM. Semi-supervised learning in cancer diagnostics. Front Oncol 2022; 12: 960984
24 He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. arXiv; 2015
25 Devlin J, Chang M-W, Lee K, Toutanova K. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv:181004805 [cs] . 2018
26 Brown TB, Mann B, Ryder N. et al. Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv; 2020
27 Jalali-Najafabadi F, Stadler M, Dand N. et al; BADBIR Study Group, BSTOP Study Group. Application of information theoretic feature selection and machine learning methods for the development of genetic risk prediction models. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 23335
28 Luo W, Phung D, Tran T. et al. Guidelines for developing and reporting machine learning predictive models in biomedical research: a multidisciplinary view. J Med Internet Res 2016; 18 (12) e323
29 Schünemann HJ, Cushman M, Burnett AE. et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. Blood Adv 2018; 2 (22) 3198-3225
30 Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM. et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38 (05) 496-520
31 Ding R, Ding Y, Zheng D. et al. Machine learning-based screening of risk factors and prediction of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after hip arthroplasty. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2023; 29: 10 760296231186145
32 Liu Y, Song C, Tian Z, Shen W. Ten-year multicenter retrospective study utilizing machine learning algorithms to identify patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism after radical gastrectomy. Int J Gen Med 2023; 16: 1909-1925
33 He L, Luo L, Hou X. et al. Predicting venous thromboembolism in hospitalized trauma patients: a combination of the Caprini score and data-driven machine learning model. BMC Emerg Med 2021; 21 (01) 60
34 Nafee T, Gibson CM, Travis R. et al. Machine learning to predict venous thrombosis in acutely ill medical patients. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2020; 4 (02) 230-237
35 Sheng W, Wang X, Xu W, Hao Z, Ma H, Zhang S. Development and validation of machine learning models for venous thromboembolism risk assessment at admission: a retrospective study. Front Cardiovasc Med 2023; 10: 1198526
36 Park JI, Kim D, Lee JA, Zheng K, Amin A. Personalized risk prediction for 30-day readmissions with venous thromboembolism using machine learning. J Nurs Scholarsh 2021; 53 (03) 278-287
37 Qin L, Liang Z, Xie J. et al. Development and validation of machine learning models for postoperative venous thromboembolism prediction in colorectal cancer inpatients: a retrospective study. J Gastrointest Oncol 2023; 14 (01) 220-232
38 Mantha S, Chatterjee S, Singh R. et al. Application of machine learning to the prediction of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Res Sq 2023:rs.3.rs-2870367
39 Rasouli Dezfouli E, Delen D, Zhao H, Davazdahemami B. A machine learning framework for assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing hip or knee replacement. J Healthc Inform Res 2022; 6 (04) 423-441
40 Nudel J, Bishara AM, de Geus SWL. et al. Development and validation of machine learning models to predict gastrointestinal leak and venous thromboembolism after weight loss surgery: an analysis of the MBSAQIP database. Surg Endosc 2021; 35 (01) 182-191
41 Katiyar P, Chase H, Lenke LG, Weidenbaum M, Sardar ZM. Using machine learning (ML) models to predict risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2023; 36 (10) E453-E456
42 Yan YD, Yu Z, Ding LP. et al. Machine learning to dynamically predict in-hospital venous thromboembolism after inguinal hernia surgery: results from the CHAT-1 study. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2023; 29: 10 760296231171082
43 Franco-Moreno A, Madroñal-Cerezo E, Muñoz-Rivas N, Torres-Macho J, Ruiz-Giardín JM, Ancos-Aracil CL. Prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer using machine learning approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2023; 7: e2300060
44 Michtalik HJ, Carolan HT, Haut ER. et al. Use of provider-level dashboards and pay-for-performance in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. J Hosp Med 2015; 10 (03) 172-178
45 Child S, Sheaff R, Boiko O, Bateman A, Gericke CA. Has incentive payment improved venous thrombo-embolism risk assessment and treatment of hospital in-patients?. F1000 Res 2013; 2: 41
46 Chiasakul T, Lam BD, McNichol M. et al. Artificial intelligence in the prediction of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Eur J Haematol 2023; 111 (06) 951-962
47 Darzi AJ, Repp AB, Spencer FA. et al. Risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: an overview of systematic reviews. Blood Adv 2020; 4 (19) 4929-4944
48 Chen R, Petrazzini BO, Malick WA, Rosenson RS, Do R. Prediction of venous thromboembolism in diverse populations using machine learning and structured electronic health records. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2024; 44 (02) 491-504
49 Ortel TL, Neumann I, Ageno W. et al. American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Blood Adv 2020; 4 (19) 4693-4738
50 Park HS, Ahn BJ, Jun JK. Placental transfer of clarithromycin in human pregnancies with preterm premature rupture of membranes. J Perinat Med 2012; 40 (06) 641-646
51 Gottsäter A, Ekelund U, Melander O, Björkelund A, Ohlsson B. Cohort study of prediction of venous thromboembolism in emergency department patients with extremity symptoms. Intern Emerg Med 2024;
52 Turizo MJF, Patell R, Zwicker JI. Identifying novel biomarkers using proteomics to predict cancer-associated thrombosis. Bleeding Thromb Vasc Biol 2024; 3 (Suppl. 01) 120
53 Naik N, Hameed BMZ, Shetty DK. et al. Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: Who takes responsibility?. Front Surg 2022; 9: 862322
54 Schmuelling L, Franzeck FC, Nickel CH. et al. Deep learning-based automated detection of pulmonary embolism on CT pulmonary angiograms: no significant effects on report communication times and patient turnaround in the emergency department nine months after technical implementation. Eur J Radiol 2021; 141: 109816
55 Fisher RE, Scott JA, Palmer EL. Neural networks in ventilation-perfusion imaging. Radiology 1996; 198 (03) 699-706
56 Jamin A, Hoffmann C, Mahe G, Bressollette L, Humeau-Heurtier A. Pulmonary embolism detection on venous thrombosis ultrasound images with bi-dimensional entropy measures: preliminary results. Med Phys 2023; 50 (12) 7840-7851
57 Nakayama Y, Sato M, Okamoto M. et al. Deep learning-based classification of adequate sonographic images for self-diagnosing deep vein thrombosis. PLoS One 2023; 18 (03) e0282747
58 Soffer S, Klang E, Shimon O. et al. Deep learning for pulmonary embolism detection on computed tomography pulmonary angiogram: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 15814
59 Kligerman SJ, Mitchell JW, Sechrist JW, Meeks AK, Galvin JR, White CS. Radiologist performance in the detection of pulmonary embolism: features that favor correct interpretation and risk factors for errors. J Thorac Imaging 2018; 33 (06) 350-357
60 Das M, Mühlenbruch G, Helm A. et al. Computer-aided detection of pulmonary embolism: influence on radiologists' detection performance with respect to vessel segments. Eur Radiol 2008; 18 (07) 1350-1355
61 Eng J, Krishnan JA, Segal JB. et al. Accuracy of CT in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a systematic literature review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183 (06) 1819-1827
62 Abdulaal L, Maiter A, Salehi M. et al. A systematic review of artificial intelligence tools for chronic pulmonary embolism on CT pulmonary angiography. Front Radiol 2024; 4: 1335349
63 Rivera-Lebron B, McDaniel M, Ahrar K. et al; PERT Consortium. Diagnosis, treatment and follow up of acute pulmonary embolism: consensus practice from the PERT Consortium. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2019; 25: 10 76029619853037
64 Deng RX, Zhu XL, Zhang AB. et al. Machine learning algorithm as a prognostic tool for venous thromboembolism in allogeneic transplant patients. Transplant Cell Ther 2023; 29 (01) 57.e1-57.e10
65 Mora D, Nieto JA, Mateo J. et al; RIETE Investigators. Machine learning to predict outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism who prematurely discontinued anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost 2022; 122 (04) 570-577
66 Klok FA, Huisman MV. How I assess and manage the risk of bleeding in patients treated for venous thromboembolism. Blood 2020; 135 (10) 724-734
67 Mora D, Mateo J, Nieto JA. et al; Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) Investigators. Machine learning to predict major bleeding during anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism: possibilities and limitations. Br J Haematol 2023; 201 (05) 971-981
68 Johnstone C, Rich SE. Bleeding in cancer patients and its treatment: a review. Ann Palliat Med 2018; 7 (02) 265-273
69 Grdinic AG, Radovanovic S, Gleditsch J. et al. Developing a machine learning model for bleeding prediction in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis receiving anticoagulation therapy. J Thromb Haemost 2024; 22 (04) 1094-1104
70 Shahryari Fard S, Perkins TJ, Wells PS. A deep-learning approach to predict bleeding risk over time in patients on extended anticoagulation therapy. J Thromb Haemost 2024; 22 (07) 1997-2008
71 Choi H, Kang HJ, Ahn I. et al. Machine learning models to predict the warfarin discharge dosage using clinical information of inpatients from South Korea. Sci Rep 2023; 13 (01) 22461
72 Ravvaz K, Weissert JA, Ruff CT, Chi CL, Tonellato PJ. Personalized anticoagulation: optimizing warfarin management using genetics and simulated clinical trials. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2017; 10 (06) e001804
73 Meid AD, Wirbka L, Groll A, Haefeli WE, Haefeli WE. ARMIN Study Group. Can machine learning from real-world data support drug treatment decisions? A prediction modeling case for direct oral anticoagulants. Med Decis Making 2022; 42 (05) 587-598
74 Zhan C, Battles J, Chiang YP, Hunt D. The validity of ICD-9-CM codes in identifying postoperative deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2007; 33 (06) 326-331
75 Fang MC, Fan D, Sung SH. et al. Validity of using inpatient and outpatient administrative codes to identify acute venous thromboembolism: the CVRN VTE study. Med Care 2017; 55 (12) e137-e143
76 Fanni SC, Febi M, Aghakhanyan G, Neri E. Natural language processing. In: Klontzas ME, Fanni SC, Neri E. eds. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. Springer International Publishing;; 2023: 87-99
77 Lam BD, Chrysafi P, Chiasakul T. et al. Machine learning natural language processing for identifying venous thromboembolism: systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood Adv 2024; 8 (12) 2991-3000
78 Li A, da Costa Jr WL, Guffey D. et al. Developing and optimizing a computable phenotype for incident venous thromboembolism in a longitudinal cohort of patients with cancer. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2022; 6 (04) e12733
79 Taggart M, Chapman WW, Steinberg BA. et al. Comparison of 2 natural language processing methods for identification of bleeding among critically ill patients. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1 (06) e183451
80 Shung D, Tsay C, Laine L. et al. Early identification of patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding using natural language processing and decision rules. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36 (06) 1590-1597
81 Gu K, Lee JH, Shin J. et al. Using GPT-4 for LI-RADS feature extraction and categorization with multilingual free-text reports. Liver Int 2024; 44 (07) 1578-1587
82 Saab K, Tu T, Weng W-H. et al. Capabilities of Gemini Models in Medicine. arXiv; 2024
83 Bommasani R, Hudson DA, Adeli E. et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv:210807258 [cs] . 2021
84 Meskó B. Prompt engineering as an important emerging skill for medical professionals: tutorial. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e50638
85 Wang L, Chen X, Deng X. et al. Prompt engineering in consistency and reliability with the evidence-based guideline for LLMs. NPJ Digit Med 2024; 7 (01) 41
86 Touvron H, Lavril T, Izacard G. et al. LlaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models. arXiv; 2023
87 Groeneveld D, Beltagy I, Walsh P. et al. OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Models. arXiv; 2024
88 Pecher B, Srba I, Bielikova M. Comparing Specialised Small and General Large Language Models on Text Classification: 100 Labelled Samples to Achieve Break-Even Performance. arXiv; 2024
89 Van Veen D, Van Uden C, Blankemeier L. et al. Clinical text summarization: adapting large language models can outperform human experts. Res Sq 2023; rs.3.rs-3483777
90 Van Veen D, Van Uden C, Blankemeier L. et al. Adapted large language models can outperform medical experts in clinical text summarization. Nat Med 2024; 30 (04) 1134-1142
91 Ge J, Li M, Delk MB, Lai JC. A comparison of a large language model vs manual chart review for the extraction of data elements from the electronic health record. Gastroenterology 2024; 166 (04) 707-709.e3
92 Somani SS, Honarvar H, Narula S. et al. Development of a machine learning model using electrocardiogram signals to improve acute pulmonary embolism screening. Eur Heart J Digit Health 2021; 3 (01) 56-66
93 Rovenchak A, Druchok M. Machine learning-assisted search for novel coagulants: when machine learning can be efficient even if data availability is low. J Comput Chem 2024; 45 (13) 937-952
94 Bordukova M, Makarov N, Rodriguez-Esteban R, Schmich F, Menden MP. Generative artificial intelligence empowers digital twins in drug discovery and clinical trials. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2024; 19 (01) 33-42
95 Ktena I, Wiles O, Albuquerque I. et al. Generative models improve fairness of medical classifiers under distribution shifts. Nat Med 2024; 30 (04) 1166-1173
96 Mateen BA, Liley J, Denniston AK, Holmes CC, Vollmer SJ. Improving the quality of machine learning in health applications and clinical research. Nat Mach Intell 2020; 2 (10) 554-556
97 Ng MY, Youssef A, Miner AS. et al. Perceptions of data set experts on important characteristics of health data sets ready for machine learning: a qualitative study. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (12) e2345892
98 Chato L, Regentova E. Survey of transfer learning approaches in the machine learning of digital health sensing data. J Pers Med 2023; 13 (12) 1703
99 Panch T, Mattie H, Celi LA. The “inconvenient truth” about AI in healthcare. NPJ Digit Med 2019; 2: 77
100 Teo ZL, Jin L, Li S. et al. Federated machine learning in healthcare: a systematic review on clinical applications and technical architecture. Cell Rep Med 2024; 5 (02) 101419
101 Arora A, Arora A. Machine learning models trained on synthetic datasets of multiple sample sizes for the use of predicting blood pressure from clinical data in a national dataset. PLoS One 2023; 18 (03) e0283094
102 Coombs L, Orlando A, Wang X. et al. A machine learning framework supporting prospective clinical decisions applied to risk prediction in oncology. NPJ Digit Med 2022; 5 (01) 117
103 Bartels R, Dudink J, Haitjema S, Oberski D, van 't Veen A. A perspective on a quality management system for AI/ML-based clinical decision support in hospital care. Front Digit Health 2022; 4: 942588
104 Sahiner B, Chen W, Samala RK, Petrick N. Data drift in medical machine learning: implications and potential remedies. Br J Radiol 2023; 96 (1150) 20220878
105 Rajpurkar P, Chen E, Banerjee O, Topol EJ. AI in health and medicine. Nat Med 2022; 28 (01) 31-38
106 Ferrara C, Sellitto G, Ferrucci F, Palomba F, De Lucia A. Fairness-aware machine learning engineering: How far are we?. Empir Softw Eng 2024; 29 (01) 9
107 Maccaro A, Stokes K, Statham L. et al. Clearing the fog: a scoping literature review on the ethical issues surrounding artificial intelligence-based medical devices. J Pers Med 2024; 14 (05) 443
108 Lau BD, Haider AH, Streiff MB. et al. Eliminating health care disparities with mandatory clinical decision support: the venous thromboembolism (VTE) example. Med Care 2015; 53 (01) 18-24
109 Lam BD, Dodge LE, Zerbey S. et al. The potential use of artificial intelligence for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and management: clinician and healthcare informatician perspectives. Sci Rep 2024; 14 (01) 12010
110 Bienefeld N, Boss JM, Lüthy R. et al. Solving the explainable AI conundrum by bridging clinicians' needs and developers' goals. NPJ Digit Med 2023; 6 (01) 94
111 Lu SC, Swisher CL, Chung C, Jaffray D, Sidey-Gibbons C. On the importance of interpretable machine learning predictions to inform clinical decision making in oncology. Front Oncol 2023; 13: 1129380
112 Kolbinger FR, Veldhuizen GP, Zhu J, Truhn D, Kather JN. Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Commun Med (Lond) 2024; 4 (01) 71
113 US Food and Drug Administration. Good machine learning practice for medical device development: guiding principles. Accessed September 26, 2024 at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/good-machine-learning-practice-medical-device-development-guiding-principles
114 White V, Nath A, Stansby G. Litigation claims relating to venous thromboembolism in the NHS. Phlebology 2015; 30 (06) 389-396
115 Wilson E, Phair J, Carnevale M, Koleilat I. Common reasons for malpractice lawsuits involving pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. J Surg Res 2020; 245: 212-216
116 Hofer IS, Burns M, Kendale S, Wanderer JP. Realistically integrating machine learning into clinical practice: a road map of opportunities, challenges, and a potential future. Anesth Analg 2020; 130 (05) 1115-1118
117 Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado G, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med 2019; 17 (01) 195
118 Touma S, Antaki F, Duval R. Development of a code-free machine learning model for the classification of cataract surgery phases. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 2398
119 TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ 2024; 385: q902
120 Blake SR, Das N. Deploying artificial intelligence software in an NHS trust: a how-to guide for clinicians. Br J Radiol 2024; 97 (1153) 68-72
121 Oala L, Murchison AG, Balachandran P. et al. Machine learning for health: algorithm auditing & quality control. J Med Syst 2021; 45 (12) 105
122 Bates DW, Levine D, Syrowatka A. et al. The potential of artificial intelligence to improve patient safety: a scoping review. NPJ Digit Med 2021; 4 (01) 54
123 Cahan N, Klang E, Marom EM. et al. Multimodal fusion models for pulmonary embolism mortality prediction. Sci Rep 2023; 13 (01) 7544
124 Chapman BE, Lee S, Kang HP, Chapman WW. Document-level classification of CT pulmonary angiography reports based on an extension of the ConText algorithm. J Biomed Inform 2011; 44 (05) 728-737
125 Banerjee I, Chen MC, Lungren MP, Rubin DL. Radiology report annotation using intelligent word embeddings: applied to multi-institutional chest CT cohort. J Biomed Inform 2018; 77: 11-20
126 Chen MC, Ball RL, Yang L. et al. Deep learning to classify radiology free-text reports. Radiology 2018; 286 (03) 845-852

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material