Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35226196›Full record

ArticleDiscover oncology2022

Data analytics and artificial intelligence in predicting length of stay, readmission, and mortality: a population-based study of surgical management of colorectal cancer.

Shamsul Masum, Adrian Hopgood, Samuel Stefan, Karen Flashman, Jim Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Discover oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Development of Multiservice Machine Learning Models to Predict Postsurgical Length of Stay and Discharge Disposition at the Time of Case Posting.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  9. Prediction of Length of Stay After Colorectal Surgery Using Intraoperative Risk Factors.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors.

Shamsul MasumFaculty of Technology, University of Portsmouth, Portland Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth, PO1 3AH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8489-9356
Adrian HopgoodFaculty of Technology, University of Portsmouth, Portland Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth, PO1 3AH, UK. adrian.hopgood@port.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7183-5799
Samuel StefanColorectal Department, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Southwick Hill Road, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1542-3332
Karen FlashmanColorectal Department, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Southwick Hill Road, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4829-9879
Jim KhanColorectal Department, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Southwick Hill Road, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3031-4495

Funding

University of Portsmouth Thematic Research & Innovation Fund (TRIF)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) have been used to predict patient outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. A prospectively maintained colorectal cancer database was used, covering 4336 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery between 2003 and 2019. The 47 patient parameters included demographics, peri- and post-operative outcomes, surgical approaches, complications, and mortality. Data analytics were used to compare the importance of each variable and AI prediction models were built for length of stay (LOS), readmission, and mortality. Accuracies of at least 80% have been achieved. The significant predictors of LOS were age, ASA grade, operative time, presence or absence of a stoma, robotic or laparoscopic approach to surgery, and complications. The model with support vector regression (SVR) algorithms predicted the LOS with an accuracy of 83% and mean absolute error (MAE) of 9.69 days. The significant predictors of readmission were age, laparoscopic procedure, stoma performed, preoperative nodal (N) stage, operation time, operation mode, previous surgery type, LOS, and the specific procedure. A BI-LSTM model predicted readmission with 87.5% accuracy, 84% sensitivity, and 90% specificity. The significant predictors of mortality were age, ASA grade, BMI, the formation of a stoma, preoperative TNM staging, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, curative resection, and LOS. Classification predictive modelling predicted three different colorectal cancer mortality measures (overall mortality, and 31- and 91-days mortality) with 80-96% accuracy, 84-93% sensitivity, and 75-100% specificity. A model using all variables performed only slightly better than one that used just the most significant ones.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceColorectal cancerColorectal surgeryData analyticsLength of stayMachine learningMortalityPredictionPredictor variablesReadmission

Identifiers

PMID35226196
PMCPMC8885960

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.