Abstract
Aim of the study This study aims to evaluate supervised machine learning algorithms in predicting 90 days post-operative mortality in gastrointestinal and HPB surgeries and comparing them with standard logistic regression methods.
Methods We evaluated various supervised machine learning classification algorithms like gradient boosting, K-nearest neighbours, random forest, and support vector machines with standard logistic regression methods. We used accuracy and the Receiver operating curve to compare the methods. 60% of the data were used for training, 20% for validation and 20% for testing. We used JASP 0.16.04 by the University of Amsterdam to run machine learning algorithms and statistical analysis.
Results We used data from 504 patients who have undergone gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatic biliary surgery between April 2016 and March 2023. We analyzed algorithms for predicting 90 days post-operative mortality based on features like Major surgeries, Surgeries for malignancies, age, CDC grade of surgeries, Intraoperative hypotension, Open vs Laparoscopic surgeries, ASA grade, Emergency surgeries, Operative time, Intraoperative blood product used, colorectal surgeries, small intestinal surgeries, HPB surgeries, upper gastrointestinal surgeries and hernia. Test accuracies were 96% for gradient boosting, 90 % for K-nearest neighbours, 96% for the random forest, 94% for support vector and Areas under the ROC curve were 0.802 for gradient boosting, 0.489 for K-nearest neighbours, 0.934 for random forest and 0.5 for support vector algorithms. Accuracy and Area under the ROC curve with standard logistic regression method were 94% and 0.757. Features of importance in decreasing order were ASA, operative times, blood products, small bowel surgeries and Age.
Conclusion Supervised machine learning algorithms particularly gradient boosting and random forest predicted 90 days post-operative mortality more accurately than logistic regression and such models can be part of the preoperative evaluation in gastrointestinal and HPB surgeries.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of Shalby Hospitals gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
