Incidence and Predictors of Acute Kidney Injury Following Advanced Ovarian Cancer Cytoreduction at a Tertiary UK Centre: An Exploratory Analysis and Insights from Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) following advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) surgery has not been extensively studied. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of AKI and identify preoperative and intraoperative predictors in patients undergoing advanced EOC cytoreduction using both traditional statistics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) modelling. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected for 134 patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of advanced EOC (FIGO Stage III-IV) who underwent surgical cytoreduction between January 2021 and December 2022 at a UK tertiary referral centre. AKI was diagnosed according to the KDIGO criteria. Data on 22 patient variables were extracted, including age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), procedure length, surgical complexity, and length of hospital stay. Logistic regression analysis was used for feature selection to identify AKI predictors, and an extreme gradient boost (XGBoost) model was applied to all variables related to AKI events. RESULTS: The incidence of postoperative AKI was 6.72% (n=9). Predictive factors for AKI included younger age (OR = 0.942, p=0.037), lower CCI (OR = 0.415, p=0.015), longer procedure duration (OR = 1.006, p=0.019), and greater surgical effort (OR = 1.427, p=0.007). Patients with perioperative AKI experienced a doubling in the length of hospital stay (p=0.008). Mortality rates were similar between patients with and without AKI. AI-driven algorithms highlighted the complexity of AKI prediction and provided individual risk profiles, enabling future stratification and prompting different frequencies of AKI monitoring following cytoreduction. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting AKI is a complex task. This study found a lower-than-expected incidence of AKI following advanced EOC cytoreductive surgery. AKI is linked to heightened surgical risk-taking, underscoring the need for improved guidelines focusing on postoperative monitoring for targeted patients. Artificial Intelligence offers the potential for personalized AKI prediction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".