Lucia Romano, Andrea Manno, Fabrizio Rossi, Francesco Masedu, Margherita Attanasio, Fabio Vistoli, Antonio Giuliani
{"title":"Statistical models versus machine learning approach for competing risks in proctological surgery.","authors":"Lucia Romano, Andrea Manno, Fabrizio Rossi, Francesco Masedu, Margherita Attanasio, Fabio Vistoli, Antonio Giuliani","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02109-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical risk prediction models are ubiquitous in many surgical domains. The traditional approach to develop these models involves the use of regression analysis. Machine learning algorithms are gaining in popularity as an alternative approach for prediction and classification problems. They can detect non-linear relationships between independent and dependent variables and incorporate many of them. In our work, we aimed to investigate the potential role of machine learning versus classical logistic regression for the preoperative risk assessment in proctological surgery. We used clinical data from a nationwide audit: the database consisted of 1510 patients affected by Goligher's grade III hemorrhoidal disease who underwent elective surgery. We collected anthropometric, clinical, and surgical data and we considered ten predictors to evaluate model-predictive performance. The clinical outcome was the complication rate evaluated at 30-day follow-up. Logistic regression and three machine learning techniques (Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine, Extreme Gradient Boosting) were compared in terms of area under the curve, balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. In our setting, machine learning and logistic regression models reached an equivalent predictive performance. Regarding the relative importance of the input features, all models agreed in identifying the most important factor. Combining and comparing statistical analysis and machine learning approaches in clinical field should be a common ambition, focused on improving and expanding interdisciplinary cooperation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02109-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Clinical risk prediction models are ubiquitous in many surgical domains. The traditional approach to develop these models involves the use of regression analysis. Machine learning algorithms are gaining in popularity as an alternative approach for prediction and classification problems. They can detect non-linear relationships between independent and dependent variables and incorporate many of them. In our work, we aimed to investigate the potential role of machine learning versus classical logistic regression for the preoperative risk assessment in proctological surgery. We used clinical data from a nationwide audit: the database consisted of 1510 patients affected by Goligher's grade III hemorrhoidal disease who underwent elective surgery. We collected anthropometric, clinical, and surgical data and we considered ten predictors to evaluate model-predictive performance. The clinical outcome was the complication rate evaluated at 30-day follow-up. Logistic regression and three machine learning techniques (Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine, Extreme Gradient Boosting) were compared in terms of area under the curve, balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. In our setting, machine learning and logistic regression models reached an equivalent predictive performance. Regarding the relative importance of the input features, all models agreed in identifying the most important factor. Combining and comparing statistical analysis and machine learning approaches in clinical field should be a common ambition, focused on improving and expanding interdisciplinary cooperation.
期刊介绍:
Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future.
Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts.
Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.