ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2024
Can machine learning models improve the prediction of surgical site infection in abdominal surgery than traditional statistical models?
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Machine Learning Predictive Models for Surgical Site Infections: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- From prediction to partnership: positioning machine learning as a decision-support tool for nursing risk assessment in postoperative infection prevention.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning model utilizing the ACS-NSQIP database for predicting early postoperative Re-operation in lumbar microdiscectomy.Brain & spine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo externally validate by revision and update the study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC) model of surgical site infection (SSI) using logistic regression (LR) and machine learning (ML) approaches.
methodsA retrospective analysis of hospital database-derived data from patients that had undergone gastrointestinal, colorectal and hernia surgeries (identified by ICD-9-CM). The SENIC index was calculated and fitted in an LR. MLs were developed using decision-tree (DT), random forest (RF), extreme-gradient-boosting (XGBoost) and Naïve Bayes (NB).
resultsThe prevalence of an SSI was 3.21% (404 of 12 596 surgeries; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.91%, 3.53%). The C-statistic for the original SENIC model was 0.668 (95% CI 0.648, 0.688) with an observed/expected (O/E) ratio of 0.998 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.750, 1.047). An updated-SENIC-LR model with six predictors had a C-statistic of 0.768 (95% CI 0.745, 0.790) and O/E ratio of 0.999 (IQR 0.976, 1.004). The performance of MLs considering 14 predictors was poorer than the updated-SENIC-LR with C-statistics of 0.679, 0.675, 0.656 and 0.651 for NB, XGBoost, RF and DT, respectively. Overfitting was detected for ML approaches, particularly for DT, RF and XGBoost.
conclusionThe updated-SENIC-LR model and NB may be useful for monitoring SSI risk following abdominal surgery.
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.