ArticlePloS one2024
Assessing the value of deep neural networks for postoperative complication prediction in pancreaticoduodenectomy patients.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Machine Learning Predictive Models for Surgical Site Infections: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Which Method Best Predicts Postoperative Complications: Deep Learning, Machine Learning, or Conventional Logistic Regression?Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications (PoCs) and risk prediction of these is therefore critical for optimal treatment planning. We hypothesize that novel deep learning network approaches through transfer learning may be superior to legacy approaches for PoC risk prediction in the PDAC surgical setting.
methodsData from the US National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2002-2018 were used, with a total of 5,881,881 million patients, including 31,728 PD patients. Modelling approaches comprised of a model trained on a general surgery patient cohort and then tested on a PD specific cohort (general model), a transfer learning model trained on the general surgery patients with subsequent transfer and retraining on a PD-specific patient cohort (transfer learning model), a model trained and tested exclusively on the PD-specific patient cohort (direct model), and a benchmark random forest model trained on the PD patient cohort (RF model). The models were subsequently compared against the American College of Surgeons (ACS) surgical risk calculator (SRC) in terms of predicting mortality and morbidity risk.
resultsBoth the general model and transfer learning model outperformed the RF model in 14 and 16 out of 19 prediction tasks, respectively. Additionally, both models outperformed the direct model on 17 out of the 19 tasks. The transfer learning model also outperformed the general model on 11 out of the 19 prediction tasks. The transfer learning model outperformed the ACS-SRC regarding mortality and all the models outperformed the ACS-SRC regarding the morbidity prediction with the general model achieving the highest Receiver Operator Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.668 compared to the 0.524 of the ACS SRC.
conclusionDNNs deployed using a transfer learning approach may be of value for PoC risk prediction in the PD setting.
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.