{"title":"Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Amputation and Related Outcomes in Peripheral Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Hsin Hsu, Melanie J Wang, Yu-Ying Chu, Yu-Jui Huang, Che-Hsiung Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2026.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects over 236 million individuals globally and carries substantial risks of amputation, major adverse limb events (MALE), and mortality. Existing clinical scoring systems focus on short-term surgical outcomes and lack generalizability. Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising tool for PAD outcome prediction.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct the first quantitative meta-analysis evaluating the discriminative performance, methodological rigor, and certainty of evidence of ML-based prognostic models for adverse limb outcomes in PAD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA/PRISMA-S guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception through March 15, 2026. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and PROBAST risk-of-bias assessment. Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian-Laird with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction) and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) analysis were performed; certainty was rated with GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies were included. The pooled AUC for amputation-related outcomes was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94; prediction interval, 0.79-0.98) with substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 95.4%). HSROC yielded pooled sensitivity 0.855 and specificity 0.836. Registry-based studies showed higher pooled AUC than non-registry studies (0.92 vs 0.80; p = 0.004). All models had high or unclear risk of bias in the analysis domain; none underwent independent external validation. GRADE certainty was very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML models demonstrate high discriminative performance for predicting amputation-related outcomes in PAD, but very low certainty of evidence, absence of external validation, and high risk of bias currently limit clinical implementation. Prospective multicenter validation and adherence to AI reporting guidelines are essential before clinical translation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2026.10.003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects over 236 million individuals globally and carries substantial risks of amputation, major adverse limb events (MALE), and mortality. Existing clinical scoring systems focus on short-term surgical outcomes and lack generalizability. Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising tool for PAD outcome prediction.
Objective: To conduct the first quantitative meta-analysis evaluating the discriminative performance, methodological rigor, and certainty of evidence of ML-based prognostic models for adverse limb outcomes in PAD.
Methods: Following PRISMA/PRISMA-S guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception through March 15, 2026. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and PROBAST risk-of-bias assessment. Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian-Laird with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction) and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) analysis were performed; certainty was rated with GRADE.
Results: Ten studies were included. The pooled AUC for amputation-related outcomes was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94; prediction interval, 0.79-0.98) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 95.4%). HSROC yielded pooled sensitivity 0.855 and specificity 0.836. Registry-based studies showed higher pooled AUC than non-registry studies (0.92 vs 0.80; p = 0.004). All models had high or unclear risk of bias in the analysis domain; none underwent independent external validation. GRADE certainty was very low.
Conclusions: ML models demonstrate high discriminative performance for predicting amputation-related outcomes in PAD, but very low certainty of evidence, absence of external validation, and high risk of bias currently limit clinical implementation. Prospective multicenter validation and adherence to AI reporting guidelines are essential before clinical translation.
期刊介绍:
Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal:
Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials)
Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work)
Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients)
General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic)
Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery
Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers)
Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery)
Editorials/Correspondence