Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33900400›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Predictors of 30-Day Mortality Among Dutch Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery, 2011-2016.

Tom van den Bosch, Anne-Loes K Warps, Michael P M de Nerée Tot Babberich, Christina Stamm, Bart F Geerts, Louis Vermeulen, Michel W J M Wouters, Jan Willem T Dekker, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Pieter J Tanis and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Tom van den BoschLaboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam and Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Anne-Loes K WarpsDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Michael P M de Nerée Tot BabberichPacMed, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Christina StammPacMed, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bart F GeertsHealthplus.ai, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Louis VermeulenLaboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam and Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michel W J M WoutersDutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Jan Willem T DekkerDutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Rob A E M TollenaarDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Pieter J TanisAmsterdam University Medical Centers, Department of Surgery, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Daniël M MiedemaLaboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam and Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dutch ColoRectal Audit
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLDutch Institute for Clinical Auditing · NLOncode Institute · NLReinier de Graaf Hospital · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Quality improvement programs for colorectal cancer surgery have been introduced with benchmarking based on quality indicators, such as mortality. Detailed (pre)operative characteristics may offer relevant information for proper case-mix correction. Objective: To investigate the added value of machine learning to predict quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and identify previously unrecognized predictors of 30-day mortality based on a large, nationwide colorectal cancer registry that collected extensive data on comorbidities. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients who underwent resection for primary colorectal cancer registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, were included. Multiple machine learning models (multivariable logistic regression, elastic net regression, support vector machine, random forest, and gradient boosting) were made to predict quality indicators. Model performance was compared with conventionally used scores. Risk factors were identified by logistic regression analyses and Shapley additive explanations (ie, SHAP values). Statistical analysis was performed between March 1 and September 30, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this cohort study was 30-day mortality. Prediction models were trained on a training set by performing 5-fold cross-validation, and outcomes were measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on the test set. Machine learning was further used to identify risk factors, measured by odds ratios and SHAP values. Results: This cohort study included 62 501 records, most patients were male (35 116 [56.2%]), were aged 61 to 80 years (41 560 [66.5%]), and had an American Society of Anesthesiology score of II (35 679 [57.1%]). A 30-day mortality rate of 2.7% (n = 1693) was found. The area under the curve of the best machine learning model for 30-day mortality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.85) was significantly higher than the American Society of Anesthesiology score (0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.77; P < .001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.70; P < .001), and preoperative score to predict postoperative mortality (0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77; P < .001). Hypertension, myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma were comorbidities with a high risk for increased mortality. Machine learning identified specific risk factors for a complicated course, intensive care unit admission, prolonged hospital stay, and readmission. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a decreased risk for all adverse outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that machine learning methods outperformed conventional scores to predict 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery, identified specific patient groups at risk for adverse outcomes, and provided directions to optimize benchmarking in clinical audits.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMortalityAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveAsthmaColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsComorbidityFemaleHumansHypertensionIntensive Care UnitsLaparoscopyLength of StayLogistic Models

Identifiers

PMID33900400
PMCPMC8076964
OpenAlexW3158744978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.