Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31953733›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Development and validation of machine learning models to predict gastrointestinal leak and venous thromboembolism after weight loss surgery: an analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

Jacob Nudel, Andrew M Bishara, Susanna W L de Geus, Prasad Patil, Jayakanth Srinivasan, Donald T Hess, Jonathan Woodson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jacob NudelDepartment of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Andrew M BisharaDepartment of Anesthesia, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Susanna W L de GeusDepartment of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Prasad PatilDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Jayakanth SrinivasanInstitute for Health System Innovation and Policy, Boston University, 601, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Donald T HessDepartment of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Jonathan WoodsonInstitute for Health System Innovation and Policy, Boston University, 601, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. jwoodson@bu.edu.
Boston University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Comprehensive Anesthesia Research TrainingT32GM008440 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Judith Hellman · 1996 to 2026
$5.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative gastrointestinal leak and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are devastating complications of bariatric surgery. The performance of currently available predictive models for these complications remains wanting, while machine learning has shown promise to improve on traditional modeling approaches. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of two machine learning strategies, artificial neural networks (ANNs), and gradient boosting machines (XGBs) to conventional models using logistic regression (LR) in predicting leak and VTE after bariatric surgery.

methodsANN, XGB, and LR prediction models for leak and VTE among adults undergoing initial elective weight loss surgery were trained and validated using preoperative data from 2015 to 2017 from Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. Data were randomly split into training, validation, and testing populations. Model performance was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) on the testing data for each model.

resultsThe study cohort contained 436,807 patients. The incidences of leak and VTE were 0.70% and 0.46%. ANN (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) was the best-performing model for predicting leak, followed by XGB (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.68-0.72) and then LR (AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In detecting VTE, ANN, and XGB, LR achieved similar AUCs of 0.65 (95% CI 0.63-0.68), 0.67 (95% CI 0.64-0.70), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.61-0.66), respectively; the performance difference between XGB and LR was statistically significant (p = 0.001).

conclusionsANN and XGB outperformed traditional LR in predicting leak. These results suggest that ML has the potential to improve risk stratification for bariatric surgery, especially as techniques to extract more granular data from medical records improve. Further studies investigating the merits of machine learning to improve patient selection and risk management in bariatric surgery are warranted.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAdultAnastomotic LeakBariatric SurgeryCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedHumansLogistic ModelsNeural Networks, ComputerPostoperative ComplicationsVenous ThromboembolismAnastomotic leakBariatric surgeryDeep learningMachine learningPostoperative complicationsVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID31953733
PMCPMC9278895
OpenAlexW3000450185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.