ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2026
Predicting Post-Craniotomy Intracranial Infection Using Perioperative and Early Postoperative Variables: A Retrospective Machine Learning Study.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To identify perioperative clinical and surgical variables associated with intracranial infection (ICI) after craniotomy, and establish an accurate machine learning prediction model for clinical risk stratification and early intervention. Methods: A retrospective study included 419 patients who underwent craniotomy surgery at Xiangyang Central Hospital from May 2017 to April 2024. Perioperative variables were collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to screen for risk factors. Four models (LR, RF, XGBoost, LightGBM) were constructed and validated through AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, calibration curve, and DCA were used to evaluate the performance. Results: 53 patients (12.6%) developed ICI. Independent risk factors included prolonged surgical time, significant intraoperative bleeding, postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage, multiple surgeries (≥ 2), and frequent cerebrospinal fluid sampling/drug injection through drainage tubes. LightGBM achieved the best performance: training set AUC 0.873 (95% CI 0.819-0.927), test set AUC 0.811 (95% CI 0.758-0.924), sensitivity 81.0%, specificity 79.3%, PPV 38.6%, NPV 95.7%. Good calibration and high clinical practicality were confirmed. Conclusion: Machine learning models, especially LightGBM, can effectively predict postoperative ICI. The identified risk factors and best models support personalized risk assessment and clinical prevention.
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.