ArticleAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery2025
A comparative study of machine learning models predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure: Enhancing risk estimation in over 25,000 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program patients.
Article in Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Driven Risk Prediction Models for Posthepatectomy Liver Failure: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims: Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is a significant complication with an incidence rate between 8% and 12%. Machine learning (ML) can analyze large datasets to uncover patterns not apparent through traditional methods, enhancing PHLF prediction and potentially mitigate complications. Methods: Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, patients who underwent hepatectomy were randomized into training and testing sets. ML algorithms, including LightGBM, Random Forest, XGBoost, and Deep Neural Networks, were evaluated against logistic regression. Performance metrics included receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) and Brier score loss. Shapley Additive exPlanations was used to identify individual variable relevance. Results: 28,192 patients from 2013 to 2021 who underwent hepatectomy were included; PHLF occurred in 1,305 patients (4.6%). Preoperative and intraoperative factors most contributed to PHLF. Preoperative factors were international normalized ratio > 1.0, sodium < 139 mEq/L, albumin < 3.9 g/dL, American Society of Anesthesiologists score > 2, total bilirubin > 0.65 mg/dL. Intraoperative risks include transfusion requirements, trisectionectomy, operative time > 266.5 minutes, open surgical approach. The LightGBM model performed best with an ROC AUC of 0.8349 and a Brier Score loss of 0.0834. Conclusions: While topical, the role of ML models in surgical risk stratification is evolving. This paper shows the potential of ML algorithms in identifying important subclinical changes that could affect surgical outcomes. Thresholds explored should not be taken as clinical cutoffs but as a proof of concept of how ML models could provide clinicians more information. Such integration could lead to improved clinical outcomes and efficiency in 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.