修正：
Machine learning is used to predict the risk of
理由：
-
“developing new DVT” → “new-onset DVT”：
“Developing new DVT” is redundant and clinically imprecise. In medical literature, “new-onset DVT” is the standard, concise, and semantically accurate term to denote the first occurrence or acute presentation of DVT (as opposed to recurrent DVT). “Developing new” conflates verb and adjective functions and suggests an ongoing process rather than a defined clinical event; “new-onset” is a well-established compound adjective modifying “DVT”. -
“people over 85 years old” → “individuals aged 85 years and older”：
- “People” is acceptable but less formal than “individuals” in scholarly biomedical writing; “individuals” is preferred for precision and neutrality.
- “Over 85 years old” is grammatically ambiguous (e.g., does “over” modify “85” or “years old”?) and stylistically informal. The phrase “aged 85 years and older” is unambiguous, idiomatic in clinical epidemiology, and aligns with guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE) recommending inclusive, non-ageist phrasing (e.g., avoiding “elderly” or vague comparatives like “over”).
- Note: “85 years and older” (not “85+” or “≥85”) is preferred in formal prose for readability and consistency with journal style guides (e.g., AMA Manual of Style).
-
Additional minor improvements:
- No comma is needed before “following…” because the participial phrase is restrictive (it specifies which hip fracture surgery — namely, the one these individuals underwent — and is essential to the meaning).
- “Hip fracture surgery” is correct as-is (standard clinical term); no change required.
No other grammatical, syntactic, or factual errors were present. The original sentence was largely sound but lacked terminological precision and formal register expected in academic medical writing.
