To construct and validate a predictive model for the risk of preoperative deep vein thrombosis in patients with distal femoral fractures based on blood indicators


Abstract

Background The incidence of distal femur fractures (DFF) has shown a continuous annual increase. Preoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limbs in DFF patients is associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. Inflammation has been recognized as an essential contributor to thrombus formation, drawing increasing research attention in recent years. Objectives This study aimed to construct a predictive model utilizing inflammatory blood indicators to estimate the preoperative risk of DVT in patients with DFF. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on 540 DFF patients admitted between January 2022 and September 2025, of whom 493 met the inclusion criteria. Clinical baseline characteristics and laboratory parameters were collected. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. For normally distributed data, intergroup differences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, while the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied for non-normally distributed data. Independent risk factors for preoperative lower limb DVT were identified through univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses. The predictive model was established using R 4.2.0, with patients randomly allocated to training and validation cohorts in a 7:3 ratio. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and corresponding areas under the curve (AUC) were computed for internal validation. Model performance was further assessed using calibration curves (CC) and decision curve analysis (DCA) in both cohorts. Results A total of 493 eligible patients were analyzed, comprising 205 cases with DVT and 288 without DVT. Comparative analysis revealed significant intergroup differences in age, NLR, LMR, white blood cell count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, eosinophil count, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, creatinine, and histories of hypertension, diabetes, and alcohol consumption (P<0.05). Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression identified NLR (OR=0.86, 95%CI: 0.774–0.95, P=0.004), LMR (OR=1.545, 95%CI: 1.3–1.851, P=0.000), white blood cell count (OR=1.245, 95%CI: 1.152–1.353, P=0.000), neutrophil count (OR=1.563, 95%CI: 1.398–1.766, P=0.000), lymphocyte count (OR=0.151, 95%CI: 0.077–0.285, P=0.000), and eosinophil count (OR=2.343, 95%CI: 0.657–8.447, P=0.19) as independent variables associated with preoperative lower limb DVT in DFF patients. Incorporating age with these indicators, a predictive model was developed. The ROC analysis demonstrated AUC values of 0.926 and 0.939 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Conclusions Among the preoperative inflammatory indicators evaluated, NLR, LMR, white blood cell count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count were identified as independent determinants of preoperative lower limb DVT in patients with DFF.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].