Using a machine learning approach to predict outcome after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy

Zamir G Merali, Christopher D Witiw, Jetan H Badhiwala, Jefferson R Wilson, Michael G Fehlings, Zamir G Merali, Christopher D Witiw, Jetan H Badhiwala, Jefferson R Wilson, Michael G Fehlings

Abstract

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a spinal cord condition that results in progressive non-traumatic compression of the cervical spinal cord. Spine surgeons must consider a large quantity of information relating to disease presentation, imaging features, and patient characteristics to determine if a patient will benefit from surgery for DCM. We applied a supervised machine learning approach to develop a classification model to predict individual patient outcome after surgery for DCM. Patients undergoing surgery for DCM as a part of the AOSpine CSM-NA or CSM-I prospective, multi-centre studies were included in the analysis. Out of 757 patients 605, 583, and 539 patients had complete follow-up information at 6, 12, and 24 months respectively and were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was improvement in the SF-6D quality of life indicator score by the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). The secondary outcome was improvement in the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) score by the MCID. Predictor variables reflected information about pre-operative disease severity, disease presentation, patient demographics, and comorbidities. A machine learning approach of feature engineering, data pre-processing, and model optimization was used to create the most accurate predictive model of outcome after surgery for DCM. Following data pre-processing 48, 108, and 101 features were chosen for model training at 6, 12, and 24 months respectively. The best performing predictive model used a random forest structure and had an average area under the curve (AUC) of 0.70, classification accuracy of 77%, and sensitivity of 78% when evaluated on a testing cohort that was not used for model training. Worse pre-operative disease severity, longer duration of DCM symptoms, older age, higher body weight, and current smoking status were associated with worse surgical outcomes. We developed a model that predicted positive surgical outcome for DCM with good accuracy at the individual patient level on an independent testing cohort. Our analysis demonstrates the applicability of machine-learning to predictive modeling in spine surgery.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00285337 NCT00565734.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Results of the recursive feature elimination algorithm applied to 6-month follow-up (A), 12-month follow-up (B), and 24-month follow-up (C). The figures demonstrate the change in root mean squared error (RMSE) as features were iteratively added to the model. As greater number of features were added to the model the RMSE decreased to a minimum value, demonstrating best model fit, then began to increase as greater numbers of ‘distracting’ features were added. The set of features that achieved the minimum RMSE were used for model training (shown by vertical black line).
Fig 2. Receiver operating characteristic curves for…
Fig 2. Receiver operating characteristic curves for the random forest model at all follow-up points on the training/validation dataset.
The blue lines represent each cross validation fold.
Fig 3. Density plots for the top…
Fig 3. Density plots for the top 6 most important predictive features selected by the random forest model.
These density plots demonstrate the distribution of the key features between the patients who did (blue) and did not (red) show improvement in SF6D at 1-year follow-up. In all key features there is overlap of the curves, demonstrating that there is no one singe feature that can alone predict if a patient with DCM will improve with surgery.

References

    1. Badhiwala JH, Wilson JR. The Natural History of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2018;29:21–32. 10.1016/j.nec.2017.09.002
    1. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Epidemiology, Genetics, and Pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:E675–93. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000913
    1. Karadimas SK, Erwin WM, Ely CG, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG. Pathophysiology and natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:S21–36. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f2c3
    1. Fehlings MG, Kopjar B, Arnold PM, Yoon SW, Vaccaro AR, Shaffrey CI, et al. The AOSpine North America Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Study: 2-Year Surgical Outcomes of a Prospective Multicenter Study in 280 Patients922. Neurosurgery 2010;67:543.
    1. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1651–8. 10.2106/JBJS.L.00589
    1. Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Riew KD, Middleton JW, Aarabi B, Arnold PM, et al. A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Recommendations for Patients With Mild, Moderate, and Severe Disease and Nonmyelopathic Patients With Evidence of Cord Compression. Glob Spine J 2017;7:70S – 83S. 10.1177/2192568217701914
    1. Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Wilson JR, Kwon BK, Burns AS, Martin AR, et al. A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Introduction, Rationale, and Scope. Glob Spine J 2017;7:84S – 94S. 10.1177/2192568217703387
    1. Wilson JR, Tetreault LA, Kwon BK, Arnold PM, Mroz TE, Shaffrey C, et al. Timing of Decompression in Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review. Glob Spine J 2017;7:95S – 115S. 10.1177/2192568217701716
    1. Tetreault LA, Kopjar B, Vaccaro A, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, et al. 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;95:1659–66. 10.2106/JBJS.L.01323
    1. Tetreault LA, Nouri A, Singh A, Fawcett M, Fehlings MG. Predictors of outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: a survey of members from AOSpine International. World Neurosurg 2014;81:623–33. 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.09.023
    1. Tetreault L, Wilson JR, Kotter MRN, Nouri A, Cote P, Kopjar B, et al. Predicting the minimum clinically important difference in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg Focus 2016;40:E14 10.3171/2016.3.FOCUS1665
    1. Tetreault L, Palubiski LM, Kryshtalskyj M, Idler RK, Martin AR, Ganau M, et al. Significant Predictors of Outcome Following Surgery for the Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2018;29:115–27.e35. 10.1016/j.nec.2017.09.020
    1. Oermann EK, Rubinsteyn A, Ding D, Mascitelli J, Starke RM, Bederson JB, et al. Using a Machine Learning Approach to Predict Outcomes after Radiosurgery for Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations. Sci Rep 2016;6:21161 10.1038/srep21161
    1. Lee S-I, Celik S, Logsdon BA, Lundberg SM, Martins TJ, Oehler VG, et al. A machine learning approach to integrate big data for precision medicine in acute myeloid leukemia. Nat Commun 2018;9:42 10.1038/s41467-017-02465-5
    1. de Toledo P, Rios PM, Ledezma A, Sanchis A, Alen JF, Lagares A. Predicting the outcome of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage using machine learning techniques. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2009;13:794–801. 10.1109/TITB.2009.2020434
    1. McHorney CA, Ware JEJ, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31:247–63.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21:271–92.
    1. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972;95:87–100.
    1. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA. Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 2010;10:469–74. 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.007
    1. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:4 10.1186/1477-7525-1-4
    1. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning. 2001.
    1. Longadge R, Dongre S. Class Imbalance Problem in Data Mining Review. CoRR 2013;abs/1305.1707.
    1. Tetreault LA, Côté P, Kopjar B, Arnold P, Fehlings MG. A clinical prediction model to assess surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: internal and external validations using the prospective multicenter AOSpine North American and international datasets of 743 patients. Spine J 2015;15:388–97. 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.12.145
    1. Ahn J-S, Lee J-K, Kim B-K. Prognostic factors that affect the surgical outcome of the laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Surg 2010;2:98–104. 10.4055/cios.2010.2.2.98
    1. Kim Y-J, Oh S-H, Yi H-J, Kim Y-S, Ko Y, Oh SJ. Myelopathy caused by soft cervical disc herniation: surgical results and prognostic factors. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2007;42:441–5. 10.3340/jkns.2007.42.6.441
    1. Matsuda Y, Shibata T, Oki S, Kawatani Y, Mashima N, Oishi H. Outcomes of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy in patients more than 75 years of age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:529–34.
    1. Naderi S, Ozgen S, Pamir MN, Ozek MM, Erzen C. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgical results and factors affecting prognosis. Neurosurgery 1998;43:43–50.
    1. Rhee J, Tetreault LA, Chapman JR, Wilson JR, Smith JS, Martin AR, et al. Nonoperative Versus Operative Management for the Treatment Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Updated Systematic Review. Glob Spine J 2017;7:35S – 41S. 10.1177/2192568217703083
    1. Tetreault L, Nouri A, Singh A, Fawcett M, Nater A, Fehlings MG. An Assessment of the Key Predictors of Perioperative Complications in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Undergoing Surgical Treatment: Results from a Survey of 916 AOSpine International Members. World Neurosurg 2015;83:679–90. 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.021
    1. Naruse T, Yanase M, Takahashi H, Horie Y, Ito M, Imaizumi T, et al. Prediction of clinical results of laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy focusing on spinal cord motion in intraoperative ultrasonography and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2634–41. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b46c00
    1. Hamburger C, Buttner A, Uhl E. The cross-sectional area of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Correlation of preoperative and postoperative area with clinical symptoms. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:1990–4; discussion 1995.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren