Developing a LASSO Regression-Based Nomogram to Predict Outcomes in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Patients Post-Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Research context and source limits

Limited evidence note. Only the source material identified below has been reviewed; this is not a complete Paper GEO V2 assessment.

Published exploratory Cox estimates with an unspecified analytical denominator; prediction performance remains unverified.

Cohort and endpoint

This single-centre retrospective study follows 304 patients after elective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The article describes an internal random split into 213 training and 91 validation patients, all-cause mortality as the endpoint, and median follow-up of 24 months (interquartile range 16–33). Emergency repair for ruptured aneurysms was excluded.

Source: Methods: Study Population and Endpoint and Follow-Up (s0002-s2001–s0002-s2002); Results Patient Characteristics; Table 1

Reported exploratory associations

Table 3 and its accompanying Results agree on adjusted associations for the article’s large-AAA variable (hazard ratio 3.09, 95% CI 1.43–6.72), stroke history (3.59, 1.67–7.70), and common iliac artery atherosclerosis (4.48, 1.92–10.49). They do not establish causality or the benefit of changing treatment, and their analytic sample size remains unspecified.

Source: Table 3 multivariable rows; Variable Analysis and Selection (s0003-s2002)

Why this is not a validated risk tool

The supplement runs Cox regression on an object named datacox without defining its membership, so the audit does not assign these estimates to 213 or 304 patients. Inconsistent time-specific AUCs and validation mortality percentages remain unresolved. Continuous-variable hazard ratios are omitted because scaling is unclear; no individual risk calculator, clinical utility, or externally validated performance is endorsed.

Source: Supplementary Table 1, survival/Cox analysis script

Evidence limits

• The Table 3 Cox analytic denominator is not specified.
• AUC and validation mortality percentage conflicts remain open.
• Reported associations do not demonstrate causality or clinical utility.

Provenance

• Article source — Official publisher or PMC full text reviewed locally. Methods: Study Population and Endpoint and Follow-Up (s0002-s2001–s0002-s2002); Results Patient Characteristics; Table 1
• Article source — Official publisher or PMC full text reviewed locally. Table 3 multivariable rows; Variable Analysis and Selection (s0003-s2002)
• Official supplementary material — Publisher-hosted supplementary document. Supplementary Table 1, survival/Cox analysis script

Source review: 2026-10-27.

Verify publication identity

These records identify the same original work; database inclusion is not evidence of scientific validity or clinical benefit.