Performance of machine learning algorithms for surgical site infection case detection and prediction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Medical researchers and clinicians have shown much interest in developing machine learning (ML) algorithms to detect/predict surgical site infections (SSIs). However, little is known about the overall performance of ML algorithms in predicting SSIs and how to improve the algorithm's robustness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the performance of ML algorithms in SSIs case detection and prediction and to describe the impact of using unstructured and textual data in the development of ML algorithms. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 25, 2021. Study characteristics and algorithm development information were extracted. Performance statistics (e.g., sensitivity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) were pooled using a random effect model. Stratified analysis was applied to different study characteristic levels. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) was followed. Results: Of 945 articles identified, 108 algorithms from 32 articles were included in this review. The overall pooled estimate of the SSI incidence rate was 3.67%, 95% CI: 3.58-3.76. Mixed-use of structured and textual data-based algorithms (pooled estimates of sensitivity 0.83, 95% CI: 0.78-0.87, specificity 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86-0.95, AUC 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94) outperformed algorithms solely based on structured data (sensitivity 0.56, 95% CI:0.43-0.69, specificity 0.95, 95% CI:0.91-0.97, AUC = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.87-0.92). Conclusions: ML algorithms developed with structured and textual data provided optimal performance. External validation of ML algorithms is needed to translate current knowledge into clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".