Prediction model of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology using machine learning algorithm.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgery has been widely used in gynecology. The laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) risk prediction model can provide evidence-based references for preoperative surgical procedure selection. AIM: To determine whether the patients are suitable for LESS and to provide guidance for the clinical operation plan, we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LESS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in gynecology. We constructed a LESS risk prediction model and predicted surgical conditions for the preoperative evaluation system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out among patients undergoing LESS (n = 1019) and CLS (n = 1055). Various clinical indicators were compared. Multiple machine model algorithms were evaluated. The optimal results were chosen as the model to form the risk prediction model. RESULTS: The LESS group showed advantages in the postoperative 12/24 h visual analog scale and Vancouver scar score compared with the CLS group (p < 0.05). The comparisons in other clinical indicators between the two groups showed that each group had advantages and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05), including operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay. We evaluated the predictive value for various models using AUC values of 0.77, 0.77, 0.76, and 0.67 for XGBoost, random forest, GBDT, and logistic regression, respectively. The decision tree model was shown to be the optimal model. CONCLUSIONS: LESS can reduce postoperative pain, shorten hospital stay and make scars acceptable. The risk prediction model based on a machine learning algorithm has manifested a high degree of accuracy and can satisfy the doctors' demand for individualized preoperative evaluation and surgical safety in LESS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".