ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2022
Differential Performance of Machine Learning Models in Prediction of Procedure-Specific Outcomes.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Which Method Best Predicts Postoperative Complications: Deep Learning, Machine Learning, or Conventional Logistic Regression?Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Assessing Hwa-byung Vulnerability Using the Hwa-byung Personality Scale: a comparative study of machine learning approaches.Journal of pharmacopuncture · 2024Article
- Optimizing prediction models for pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy: Current status and future perspectives.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Machine learning to predict postoperative complications after digestive surgery: a scoping review.The British journal of surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProcedure-specific complications can have devastating consequences. Machine learning-based tools have the potential to outperform traditional statistical modeling in predicting their risk and guiding decision-making. We sought to develop and compare deep neural network (NN) models, a type of machine learning, to logistic regression (LR) for predicting anastomotic leak after colectomy, bile leak after hepatectomy, and pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).
methodsThe colectomy, hepatectomy, and PD National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) databases were analyzed. Each dataset was split into training, validation, and testing sets in a 60/20/20 ratio, with fivefold cross-validation. Models were created using NN and LR for each outcome. Models were evaluated primarily with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsA total of 197,488 patients were included for colectomy, 25,403 for hepatectomy, and 23,333 for PD. For anastomotic leak, AUROC for NN was 0.676 (95% 0.666-0.687), compared with 0.633 (95% CI 0.620-0.647) for LR. For bile leak, AUROC for NN was 0.750 (95% CI 0.739-0.761), compared with 0.722 (95% CI 0.698-0.746) for LR. For pancreatic fistula, AUROC for NN was 0.746 (95% CI 0.733-0.760), compared with 0.713 (95% CI 0.703-0.723) for LR. Variables related to intra-operative information, such as surgical approach, biliary reconstruction, and pancreatic gland texture were highly important for model predictions. DISCUSSION: Machine learning showed a marginal advantage over traditional statistical techniques in predicting procedure-specific outcomes. However, models that included intra-operative information performed better than those that did not, suggesting that NSQIP procedure-targeted datasets may be strengthened by including relevant intra-operative information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.