ArticleScientific reports2023
Artificial intelligence based system for predicting permanent stoma after sphincter saving operations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: innovations, integration, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Machine learning for postoperative complication prediction and early recurrence risk assessment across cancer types: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer cell international · 2026Review
- Identification of Peristomal Skin Alterations Using Convolutional Artificial Neural Networks.Nursing research and practice · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of permanent ileostomy in older adults after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Predictive model for sphincter preservation in lower rectal cancer.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Predictive model for early postoperative stomal complications in colorectal cancer: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Machine learning prediction model of prolonged delay to loop ileostomy closure after rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Machine learning and deep learning to improve prevention of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Machine learning algorithms in constructing prediction models for assisted reproductive technology (ART) related live birth outcomes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Surgery: A Systematic Review of Use and Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the goal of rectal cancer treatment is to restore gastrointestinal continuity, some patients with rectal cancer develop a permanent stoma (PS) after sphincter-saving operations. Although many studies have identified the risk factors and causes of PS, few have precisely predicted the probability of PS formation before surgery. To validate whether an artificial intelligence model can accurately predict PS formation in patients with rectal cancer after sphincter-saving operations. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent a sphincter-saving operation at Taipei Medical University Hospital between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2021, were retrospectively included in this study. A machine learning technique was used to predict whether a PS would form after a sphincter-saving operation. We included 19 routinely available preoperative variables in the artificial intelligence analysis. To evaluate the efficiency of the model, 6 performance metrics were utilized: accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiving operating characteristic curve. In our classification pipeline, the data were randomly divided into a training set (80% of the data) and a validation set (20% of the data). The artificial intelligence models were trained using the training dataset, and their performance was evaluated using the validation dataset. Synthetic minority oversampling was used to solve the data imbalance. A total of 428 patients were included, and the PS rate was 13.6% (58/428) in the training set. The logistic regression (LR), Gaussian Naïve Bayes (GNB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Gradient Boosting (GB), random forest, decision tree and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) algorithms were employed. The accuracies of the logistic regression (LR), Gaussian Naïve Bayes (GNB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Gradient Boosting (GB), random forest (RF), decision tree (DT) and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) models were 70%, 76%, 89%, 93%, 95%, 79% and 93%, respectively. The area under the receiving operating characteristic curve values were 0.79 for the LR model, 0.84 for the GNB, 0.95 for the XGB, 0.95 for the GB, 0.99 for the RF model, 0.79 for the DT model and 0.98 for the LightGBM model. The key predictors that were identified were the distance of the lesion from the anal verge, clinical N stage, age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and preoperative albumin and carcinoembryonic antigen levels. Integration of artificial intelligence with available preoperative data can potentially predict stoma outcomes after sphincter-saving operations. Our model exhibited excellent predictive ability and can improve the process of obtaining informed consent.
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.