Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34313597›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021

Prediction Model of Anastomotic Leakage Among Esophageal Cancer Patients After Receiving an Esophagectomy: Machine Learning Approach.

Ziran Zhao, Xi Cheng, Xiao Sun, Shanrui Ma, Hao Feng, Liang Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ziran ZhaoThoracic Surgery Department, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-7034
Xi ChengDepartment of Global Health Management, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7296-2872
Xiao SunDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0623-1523
Shanrui MaThoracic Surgery Department, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3666-1041
Hao FengThoracic Surgery Department, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3798-8203
Liang ZhaoThoracic Surgery Department, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6505-290X
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNTulane University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the severe postoperative adverse events (5%-30%), and it is related to increased medical costs in cancer patients who undergo esophagectomies. Machine learning (ML) methods show good performance at predicting risk for AL. However, AL risk prediction based on ML models among the Chinese population is unavailable.

objectiveThis study uses ML techniques to develop and validate a risk prediction model to screen patients with emerging AL risk factors.

methodsAnalyses were performed using medical records from 710 patients who underwent esophagectomies at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer between January 2010 and May 2015. We randomly split (9:1) the data set into a training data set of 639 patients and a testing data set of 71 patients using a computer algorithm. We assessed multiple classification tools to create a multivariate risk prediction model. Our ML algorithms contained decision tree, random forest, naive Bayes, and logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. The optimal AL prediction model was selected based on model evaluation metrics.

resultsThe final risk panel included 36 independent risk features. Of those, 10 features were significantly identified by the logistic model, including aortic calcification (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.32-5.81), celiac trunk calcification (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.20-6.48), forced expiratory volume 1% (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.89); TLco (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27-1.18), peripheral vascular disease (OR 4.97, 95% CI 1.44-17.07), laparoscope (OR 3.92, 95% CI 1.23-12.51), postoperative length of hospital stay (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.21), vascular permeability activity (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.14-1.48), and fat liquefaction of incisions (OR 4.36, 95% CI 1.86-10.21). Logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator offered the highest prediction quality with an area under the receiver operator characteristic of 72% in the training data set. The testing model also achieved similar high performance.

conclusionsOur model offered a prediction of AL with high accuracy, assisting in AL prevention and treatment. A personalized ML prediction model with a purely data-driven selection of features is feasible and effective in predicting AL in patients who underwent esophagectomy.

Indexed as

anastomotic leakageesophageal canceresophagectomymachine learningrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID34313597
PMCPMC8367102
OpenAlexW3185975388

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.