AI‐driven preoperative risk assessment in kidney cancer surgery: A comparative feasibility study of machine learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Preoperative risk stratification in renal tumour surgery is essential to enable risk-adjusted postoperative patient monitoring. Machine learning (ML) models predicting major complications (MCs) and acute kidney injuries (AKIs) following partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) have not been made, nor have they been compared with traditional logistic regression models. Design setting and participants: A total of 963 patients who underwent PN and RN between January 2017 and March 2023 at the University Medical Center Mannheim were included. The dataset consisted of 30 variables of interest- 18 descriptive and 12 predictor variables, which allowed for 7 predictor variables per event. The dataset was pre-processed, and ML models were created for MC and AKI. The selected models included Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Stochastic Gradient Boosting, Neural Networks (NNs) and Elastic Net Logistic Regression models (ENETs). Results and limitations: For major complications, the NN model had the best model fitting, with an AUROC of 0.762 [95%CI 0.611-0.912], a sensitivity of 0.86 [95%CI 0.80-0.92] and a Brier score of 0.17 [95%CI 0.11-0.23]. For AKI, the best fit model was created using a NN with an AUROC of 0.717 [95%CI 0.611-0.823], a sensitivity of 0.82 [95%CI 0.74-0.90] and a Brier score of 0.24 [95%CI 0.17-0.31]. The best performing models for both outcomes outperformed the ENETs. Conclusions: The ML models provide valuable information for preoperative risk stratification of patients undergoing renal tumour surgery. This study suggests that NNs are the most appropriate models to stratify patients regarding the occurrence of MCs and AKIs, respectively. The models are made publicly available for reproducibility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".