0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Machine learning-based preoperative analytics for the prediction of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a swiss pilot study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Anastomotic leakage (AL), a severe complication following colorectal surgery, arises from defects at the anastomosis site. This study evaluates the feasibility of predicting AL using machine learning (ML) algorithms based on preoperative data.

          Methods

          We retrospectively analyzed data including 21 predictors from patients undergoing colorectal surgery with bowel anastomosis at four Swiss hospitals. Several ML algorithms were applied for binary classification into AL or non-AL groups, utilizing a five-fold cross-validation strategy with a 90% training and 10% validation split. Additionally, a holdout test set from an external hospital was employed to assess the models' robustness in external validation.

          Results

          Among 1244 patients, 112 (9.0%) suffered from AL. The Random Forest model showed an AUC-ROC of 0.78 (SD: ± 0.01) on the internal test set, which significantly decreased to 0.60 (SD: ± 0.05) on the external holdout test set comprising 198 patients, including 7 (3.5%) with AL. Conversely, the Logistic Regression model demonstrated more consistent AUC-ROC values of 0.69 (SD: ± 0.01) on the internal set and 0.61 (SD: ± 0.05) on the external set. Accuracy measures for Random Forest were 0.82 (SD: ± 0.04) internally and 0.87 (SD: ± 0.08) externally, while Logistic Regression achieved accuracies of 0.81 (SD: ± 0.10) and 0.88 (SD: ± 0.15). F1 Scores for Random Forest moved from 0.58 (SD: ± 0.03) internally to 0.51 (SD: ± 0.03) externally, with Logistic Regression maintaining more stable scores of 0.53 (SD: ± 0.04) and 0.51 (SD: ± 0.02).

          Conclusion

          In this pilot study, we evaluated ML-based prediction models for AL post-colorectal surgery and identified ten patient-related risk factors associated with AL. Highlighting the need for multicenter data, external validation, and larger sample sizes, our findings emphasize the potential of ML in enhancing surgical outcomes and inform future development of a web-based application for broader clinical use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scikit-learn: machine learning in python

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis.

            We performed a Monte Carlo study to evaluate the effect of the number of events per variable (EPV) analyzed in logistic regression analysis. The simulations were based on data from a cardiac trial of 673 patients in which 252 deaths occurred and seven variables were cogent predictors of mortality; the number of events per predictive variable was (252/7 =) 36 for the full sample. For the simulations, at values of EPV = 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25, we randomly generated 500 samples of the 673 patients, chosen with replacement, according to a logistic model derived from the full sample. Simulation results for the regression coefficients for each variable in each group of 500 samples were compared for bias, precision, and significance testing against the results of the model fitted to the original sample. For EPV values of 10 or greater, no major problems occurred. For EPV values less than 10, however, the regression coefficients were biased in both positive and negative directions; the large sample variance estimates from the logistic model both overestimated and underestimated the sample variance of the regression coefficients; the 90% confidence limits about the estimated values did not have proper coverage; the Wald statistic was conservative under the null hypothesis; and paradoxical associations (significance in the wrong direction) were increased. Although other factors (such as the total number of events, or sample size) may influence the validity of the logistic model, our findings indicate that low EPV can lead to major problems.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning.

              Psychology has historically been concerned, first and foremost, with explaining the causal mechanisms that give rise to behavior. Randomized, tightly controlled experiments are enshrined as the gold standard of psychological research, and there are endless investigations of the various mediating and moderating variables that govern various behaviors. We argue that psychology's near-total focus on explaining the causes of behavior has led much of the field to be populated by research programs that provide intricate theories of psychological mechanism but that have little (or unknown) ability to predict future behaviors with any appreciable accuracy. We propose that principles and techniques from the field of machine learning can help psychology become a more predictive science. We review some of the fundamental concepts and tools of machine learning and point out examples where these concepts have been used to conduct interesting and important psychological research that focuses on predictive research questions. We suggest that an increased focus on prediction, rather than explanation, can ultimately lead us to greater understanding of behavior.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                anas.taha@unibas.ch
                Journal
                Surg Endosc
                Surg Endosc
                Surgical Endoscopy
                Springer US (New York )
                0930-2794
                1432-2218
                22 May 2024
                22 May 2024
                2024
                : 38
                : 7
                : 3672-3683
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clarunis, University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, St. Clara Hospital and University Hospital Basel, ( https://ror.org/04k51q396) 4002 Basel, Switzerland
                [2 ]Medical Faculty, University Basel, ( https://ror.org/02s6k3f65) 4056 Basel, Switzerland
                [3 ]GRID grid.410567.1, ISNI 0000 0001 1882 505X, Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, , Cantonal Hospital Basel-Landschaft, ; 4410 Liestal, Switzerland
                [4 ]Department of Computer Engineering, McGill University, ( https://ror.org/01pxwe438) Montreal, H3A 0E9 Canada
                [5 ]Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, ( https://ror.org/02s6k3f65) Hegenheimermattweg 167C Allschwil, 4123 Basel, Switzerland
                [6 ]Machine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, ( https://ror.org/01462r250) 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
                [7 ]Department of Surgery, GZO-Hospital, 8620 Wetzikon, Switzerland
                [8 ]Department of Surgery, Emmental Teaching Hospital, 3400 Burgdorf, Switzerland
                [9 ]Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, ( https://ror.org/02ss4n480) 6006 Lucerne, Switzerland
                [10 ]Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, ( https://ror.org/01vx35703) Greenville, NC USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8100-1598
                Article
                10926
                10.1007/s00464-024-10926-4
                11219450
                38777894
                ec5a69a0-b49b-41c7-bcbe-40c0d7af936b
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 4 June 2023
                : 5 May 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100016303, Medtronic Foundation;
                Funded by: University of Basel
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024

                Surgery
                anastomotic insufficiency,anastomotic leakage,machine learning,colorectal surgery,prediction tool,prediction of anastomotic leakage

                Comments

                Comment on this article