ArticleCureus2025
Machine Learning Models Using Post-operative CRP Trends to Predict Colorectal Anastomotic Leak: A Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Early prediction of anastomotic leakage within 24 h after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery using postoperative inflammatory markers: development and temporal validation of a machine learning model.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Multimodal biomarker panel for early prediction of anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery: from inflammation to ischemia.Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anastomotic leak (AL) remains a major cause of postoperative morbidity after colorectal resection. Postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) thresholds have not been widely adopted as a predictive tool for AL, with recent studies assessing the predictive accuracy of the CRP trajectory. This pilot study evaluated machine learning (ML) models using postoperative CRP thresholds and trajectory data to predict AL, compared to conventional univariate CRP metrics. A retrospective analysis of elective large bowel resections (2020-2025) from a single-institution database was performed. AL within the index admission or 30-day follow-up was diagnosed radiologically or intraoperatively. CRP levels from postoperative days (PODs) 1-3 were used to derive absolute values, percentage change, and net difference. Logistic regression and ML models - Lasso, Random Forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) were trained with five-fold cross-validation. Metrics included area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). A total of 679 patients were included; AL occurred in 2.36% (16/679). XGB using absolute CRP values and percentage change demonstrated the highest performance (AUC 0.91, sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.86, NPV 0.98). XGB modelling achieved comparable accuracy with absolute CRP values and net difference feature sets (AUC 0.90, sensitivity 0.81, specificity 0.93, NPV 0.97). Integrated threshold and trajectory feature set models outperformed exclusive absolute CRP value models (RF: AUC 0.84, sensitivity 0.69, specificity 0.92, NPV 0.95). Univariate logistic regression showed inferior discriminatory performance: POD 2 CRP ≥108 mg/L yielded AUC 0.87 (sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.69, NPV 0.99), while POD 1→2 net increase ≥94 mg/L gave AUC 0.74 (sensitivity 0.56, specificity 0.94, NPV 0.94). ML models integrating CRP threshold and trajectory data improved predictive accuracy for AL compared to traditional CRP thresholds. XGB and RF outperformed Lasso modelling, with balanced sensitivity and specificity. This highlights the value of dynamic, data-driven analysis in early postoperative risk stratification. Multi-centre analysis is planned for external validation and to confirm generalisability.
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.