Predicting postoperative surgical site infection with administrative data: a random forests algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Since primary data collection can be time-consuming and expensive, surgical site infections (SSIs) could ideally be monitored using routinely collected administrative data. We derived and internally validated efficient algorithms to identify SSIs within 30 days after surgery with health administrative data, using Machine Learning algorithms. Methods All patients enrolled in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from the Ottawa Hospital were linked to administrative datasets in Ontario, Canada. Machine Learning approaches, including a Random Forests algorithm and the high-performance logistic regression, were used to derive parsimonious models to predict SSI status. Finally, a risk score methodology was used to transform the final models into the risk score system. The SSI risk models were validated in the validation datasets. Results Of 14,351 patients, 795 (5.5%) had an SSI. First, separate predictive models were built for three distinct administrative datasets. The final model, including hospitalization diagnostic, physician diagnostic and procedure codes, demonstrated excellent discrimination (C statistics, 0.91, 95% CI, 0.90–0.92) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 statistics, 4.531, p = 0.402). Conclusion We demonstrated that health administrative data can be effectively used to identify SSIs. Machine learning algorithms have shown a high degree of accuracy in predicting postoperative SSIs and can integrate and utilize a large amount of administrative data. External validation of this model is required before it can be routinely used to identify SSIs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".