Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35011828›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Machine Learning-Based Risk Prediction of Critical Care Unit Admission for Advanced Stage High Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery: The Leeds-Natal Score.

Alexandros Laios, Raissa Vanessa De Oliveira Silva, Daniel Lucas Dantas De Freitas, Yong Sheng Tan, Gwendolyn Saalmink, Albina Zubayraeva, Racheal Johnson, Angelika Kaufmann, Mohammed Otify, Richard Hutson and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

16 authors.

Alexandros LaiosDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4870-7393
Raissa Vanessa De Oliveira SilvaDepartment of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal CEP 59078-970, Brazil.
Daniel Lucas Dantas De FreitasDepartment of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal CEP 59078-970, Brazil.
Yong Sheng TanDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Gwendolyn SaalminkDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1310-0281
Albina ZubayraevaDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Racheal JohnsonDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Angelika KaufmannDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Mohammed OtifyDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Richard HutsonDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Amudha ThangaveluDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Tim BroadheadDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
David NugentDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Georgios TheophilouDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Kassio Michell Gomes de LimaDepartment of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal CEP 59078-970, Brazil.
Diederick De JongDepartment of Gynaecologic Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0081-674X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Achieving complete surgical cytoreduction in advanced stage high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) patients warrants an availability of Critical Care Unit (CCU) beds. Machine Learning (ML) could be helpful in monitoring CCU admissions to improve standards of care. We aimed to improve the accuracy of predicting CCU admission in HGSOC patients by ML algorithms and developed an ML-based predictive score. A cohort of 291 advanced stage HGSOC patients with fully curated data was selected. Several linear and non-linear distances, and quadratic discriminant ML methods, were employed to derive prediction information for CCU admission. When all the variables were included in the model, the prediction accuracies were higher for linear discriminant (0.90) and quadratic discriminant (0.93) methods compared with conventional logistic regression (0.84). Feature selection identified pre-treatment albumin, surgical complexity score, estimated blood loss, operative time, and bowel resection with stoma as the most significant prediction features. The real-time prediction accuracy of the Graphical User Interface CCU calculator reached 95%. Limited, potentially modifiable, mostly intra-operative factors contributing to CCU admission were identified and suggest areas for targeted interventions. The accurate quantification of CCU admission patterns is critical information when counseling patients about peri-operative risks related to their cytoreductive surgery.

Indexed as

Critical Care UnitGraphical User InterfaceMachine Learningovarian cancersurgical cytoreduction

Identifiers

PMID35011828
PMCPMC8745521

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.