Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37311893›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Application of machine learning to predict postoperative gastrointestinal bleed in bariatric surgery.

Justin L Hsu, Kevin A Chen, Logan R Butler, Anoosh Bahraini, Muneera R Kapadia, Shawn M Gomez, Timothy M Farrell

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Artificial intelligence in clinical thrombosis and hemostasis: A review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Justin L HsuDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 4001 Burnett-Womack CB#7050, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. Justin_Hsu@med.unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9850-3869
Kevin A ChenDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 4001 Burnett-Womack CB#7050, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Logan R ButlerUniversity of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Anoosh BahrainiDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 4001 Burnett-Womack CB#7050, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Muneera R KapadiaDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 4001 Burnett-Womack CB#7050, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Shawn M GomezDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Timothy M FarrellDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 4001 Burnett-Womack CB#7050, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

UNC Integrated Translational Oncology Program (UNC-iTOP)T32CA244125 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WILLIAM Y. KIM, Jen Jen Yeh · 2019 to 2026
$3.9M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA244125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a rare but serious complication of bariatric surgery. The recent rise in extended venous thromboembolism regimens as well as outpatient bariatric surgery may increase the risk of postoperative GIB or lead to delay in diagnosis. This study seeks to use machine learning (ML) to create a model that predicts postoperative GIB to aid surgeon decision-making and improve patient counseling for postoperative bleeds.

methodsThe Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was used to train and validate three types of ML methods: random forest (RF), gradient boosting (XGB), and deep neural networks (NN), and compare them with logistic regression (LR) regarding postoperative GIB. The dataset was split using fivefold cross-validation into training and validation sets, in an 80/20 ratio. The performance of the models was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and compared with the DeLong test. Variables with the strongest effect were identified using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP).

resultsThe study included 159,959 patients. Postoperative GIB was identified in 632 (0.4%) patients. The three ML methods, RF (AUROC 0.764), XGB (AUROC 0.746), and NN (AUROC 0.741) all outperformed LR (AUROC 0.709). The best ML method, RF, was able to predict postoperative GIB with a specificity and sensitivity of 70.0% and 75.4%, respectively. Using DeLong testing, the difference between RF and LR was determined to be significant with p < 0.01. Type of bariatric surgery, pre-op hematocrit, age, duration of procedure, and pre-op creatinine were the 5 most important features identified by ML retrospectively.

conclusionsWe have developed a ML model that outperformed LR in predicting postoperative GIB. Using ML models for risk prediction can be a helpful tool for both surgeons and patients undergoing bariatric procedures but more interpretable models are needed.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryMachine LearningGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansLogistic ModelsPostoperative HemorrhageRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceBariatric surgeryMachine learningMBSAQIPPostoperative bleedingRisk calculator

Identifiers

PMID37311893
PMCPMC12046526
OpenAlexW4380480367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.