Testing Machine Learning Models to Predict Postoperative Ileus after Colorectal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Postoperative ileus (POI) is a common complication after colorectal surgery, leading to increased hospital stay and costs. This study aimed to explore patient comorbidities that contribute to the development of POI in the colorectal surgical population and compare machine learning (ML) model accuracy to existing risk instruments. Study Design: In a retrospective study, data were collected on 316 adult patients who underwent colorectal surgery from January 2020 to December 2021. The study excluded patients undergoing multi-visceral resections, re-operations, or combined primary and metastatic resections. Patients lacking follow-up within 90 days after surgery were also excluded. Eight different ML models were trained and cross-validated using 29 patient comorbidities and four comorbidity risk indices (ASA Status, NSQIP, CCI, and ECI). Results: The study found that 6.33% of patients experienced POI. Age, BMI, gender, kidney disease, anemia, arrhythmia, rheumatoid arthritis, and NSQIP score were identified as significant predictors of POI. The ML models with the greatest accuracy were AdaBoost tuned with grid search (94.2%) and XG Boost tuned with grid search (85.2%). Conclusions: This study suggests that ML models can predict the risk of POI with high accuracy and may offer a new frontier in early detection and intervention for postoperative outcome optimization. ML models can greatly improve the prediction and prevention of POI in colorectal surgery patients, which can lead to improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. Further research is required to validate and assess the replicability of these results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".