MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200036686 · doi:10.1101/2021.12.11.21267569

Machine learning based preoperative analytics for the prediction of anastomotic insufficiency in colorectal surgery: a single-centre pilot study

2021· preprint· en· W4200036686 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Taha‐Mehlitz, Larissa Wentzler, Fiorenzo Angehrn, Ahmad Hendie, Vincent Ochs, Victor E. Staartjes, Markus von Flüe, Anas Taha, Daniel C. Steinemann

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalColorectal surgeryAnastomosisAmerican society of anesthesiologistsRetrospective cohort studySurgeryComplicationInternal medicineAbdominal surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Anastomotic insufficiency (AI) is a relatively common but grave complication after colorectal surgery. This study aims to determine whether AI can be predicted from simple preoperative data using machine learning (ML) algorithms. Methods and analysis In this retrospective analysis, patients undergoing colorectal surgery with creation of a bowel anastomosis from the University Hospital of Basel were included. Data was split into a training set (80%) and a test set (20%). The group of patients with AI was oversampled to a ratio of 50:50 in the training set and missing values were imputed. Known predictors of AI were included as inputs: age, BMI, smoking status, the Charlson Comorbidity Index, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of operation, indication, haemoglobin and albumin levels, and renal function. Results Of the 593 included patients, 88 experienced AI. At internal validation on unseen patients from the test set, area under the curve (AUC) was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.79), calibration slope was 0.16 (95% CI: −0.06-0.39) and calibration intercept was 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.11). We observed a specificity of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58-0.76), sensitivity of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.08-0.67), and accuracy of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.55-0.72). Conclusion By using 10 patient-related risk factors associated with AI, we demonstrate the feasibility of ML-based prediction of AI after colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, it is crucial to include multicenter data and higher sample sizes to develop a robust and generalisable model, which will subsequently allow for deployment of the algorithm in a web-based application. Strengths and limitations of this study To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to establish a risk prediction model for anastomotic insufficiency in a perioperative setting in colon surgery. Data from all patients that underwent colon surgery within 8 years at University Hospital Basel were included. We evaluated the feasibility of developing a machine learning model that predicts the outcome by using well-known risk factors for anastomotic insufficiency. Although our model showed promising results, it is crucial to validate our findings externally before clinical practice implications are possible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→