ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2025
Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Prediction Model for Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery: Results From a Multicenter, International Cohort.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Erratum: Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Prediction Model for Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery: Results From a Multicenter, International Cohort: Erratum.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- [Surgical management of giant hemangiomas in the caudate lobe: an overview on the intraoperative management and role of artificial intelligence (AI) in improvement of the surgical results].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to (1) develop a machine learning (ML) model that predicts the textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS) using preoperative variables and (2) validate the TOLS criteria by determining whether TOLS is associated with long-term survival after hepatectomy. Background: Textbook outcome is a composite measure that combines several favorable outcomes into a single metric and represents the optimal postoperative course. Recently, an expert panel of surgeons proposed a Delphi consensus-based definition of TOLS. Methods: Adult patients who underwent hepatectomies were identified from a multicenter, international cohort (2010-2022). After data preprocessing and train-test splitting (80:20), 4 models for predicting TOLS were trained and tested. Following model optimization, the performance of the models was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves, and a web-based calculator was developed. In addition, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was conducted to determine the association between TOLS and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 2059 patients were included, with 62.8% meeting the criteria for TOLS. The XGBoost model, which had the best performance with an area under the curve of 0.73, was chosen for the web-based calculator. The most predictive variables for having TOLS were a minimally invasive approach, fewer lesions, lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower preoperative creatinine levels, and smaller lesions. In the multivariable analysis, having TOLS was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio = 0.82, Conclusions: Our ML model can predict TOLS with acceptable discrimination. We validated the TOLS criteria by demonstrating a significant association with improved OS, thus supporting their use in informing patient care.
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.