ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator Accuracy When Operative Risk is Represented by the Principal CPT® code Versus Many Codes.

IF 6.4 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Annals of surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000006661
Mark E Cohen, Yaoming Liu, Bruce L Hall, Clifford Y Ko
{"title":"ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator Accuracy When Operative Risk is Represented by the Principal CPT® code Versus Many Codes.","authors":"Mark E Cohen, Yaoming Liu, Bruce L Hall, Clifford Y Ko","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether ACS NSQIP risk calculator (RC) accuracy can be improved by incorporating CPT codes beyond the principal code.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Because of technical limitations, past and current RC algorithms have relied only on the principal CPT code, represented as a logit score, to adjust for procedure-related risk. RC performance was evaluated when using a new machine learning (ML) algorithm capable of incorporating an indeterminate number of high cardinality categorical variables (in this case, multiple CPT codes).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ACS-NSQIP data from 5,020,713 patients from 2016-2020 were used. Predictive accuracy, for 13 outcomes, was assessed when the RC relied on, in addition to standard predictors, a logit score associated with the principal CPT code (extreme gradient boosting ML, XGB), or up to 21 codes in native categorical form (CatBoost ML, CATB). 80% of cases were used for training and 20% for validation. Discrimination (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and area under the precision recall curve) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics) were assessed on the entire validation dataset and on a subset of that data that included only patients who had at least 1 CPT code recorded beyond the principal code.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no consistent accuracy advantage of CATB over XGB with respect to discrimination. XGB tended to have slightly better calibration than CATB when evaluated on the complete validation dataset but tended to have slightly worse calibration compared to CATB when the validation dataset was limited to the subset of 34.8% of cases where there was at least one code in addition to the principal CPT code. However, there was a subset of patients with 4 or more CPTs (about 8% of all patients) where CATB provided meaningfully more accurate estimates than XGB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While the current RC, relying on XGB and the principal CPT code, remains a viable approach to routine surgical risk assessment, an advanced version of the RC, based on the CATB algorithm and accommodating multiple CPT codes, may provide more accurate estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006661","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether ACS NSQIP risk calculator (RC) accuracy can be improved by incorporating CPT codes beyond the principal code.

Background: Because of technical limitations, past and current RC algorithms have relied only on the principal CPT code, represented as a logit score, to adjust for procedure-related risk. RC performance was evaluated when using a new machine learning (ML) algorithm capable of incorporating an indeterminate number of high cardinality categorical variables (in this case, multiple CPT codes).

Methods: ACS-NSQIP data from 5,020,713 patients from 2016-2020 were used. Predictive accuracy, for 13 outcomes, was assessed when the RC relied on, in addition to standard predictors, a logit score associated with the principal CPT code (extreme gradient boosting ML, XGB), or up to 21 codes in native categorical form (CatBoost ML, CATB). 80% of cases were used for training and 20% for validation. Discrimination (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and area under the precision recall curve) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics) were assessed on the entire validation dataset and on a subset of that data that included only patients who had at least 1 CPT code recorded beyond the principal code.

Results: There was no consistent accuracy advantage of CATB over XGB with respect to discrimination. XGB tended to have slightly better calibration than CATB when evaluated on the complete validation dataset but tended to have slightly worse calibration compared to CATB when the validation dataset was limited to the subset of 34.8% of cases where there was at least one code in addition to the principal CPT code. However, there was a subset of patients with 4 or more CPTs (about 8% of all patients) where CATB provided meaningfully more accurate estimates than XGB.

Conclusions: While the current RC, relying on XGB and the principal CPT code, remains a viable approach to routine surgical risk assessment, an advanced version of the RC, based on the CATB algorithm and accommodating multiple CPT codes, may provide more accurate estimates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ACS NSQIP手术风险计算器在主要CPT®代码与许多代码表示手术风险时的准确性。
目的:探讨在主码之外加入CPT码是否能提高ACS NSQIP风险计算器(RC)的准确性。背景:由于技术限制,过去和现在的RC算法仅依赖于主要的CPT代码,表示为logit分数,以调整与程序相关的风险。当使用新的机器学习(ML)算法时,RC性能被评估,该算法能够结合不确定数量的高基数分类变量(在这种情况下,多个CPT代码)。方法:使用2016-2020年5020713例患者的ACS-NSQIP数据。除了标准预测因子外,当RC依赖于与主要CPT代码(极端梯度增强ML, XGB)或多达21个本机分类形式代码(CatBoost ML, CATB)相关的logit评分时,对13个结果的预测准确性进行评估。80%的案例用于培训,20%用于验证。在整个验证数据集和该数据的一个子集上评估了鉴别(接收者操作员特征曲线下的面积和精度召回曲线下的面积)和校准(Hosmer-Lemeshow统计),该数据子集仅包括至少有1个CPT代码记录的患者。结果:在鉴别方面,CATB与XGB没有一致的准确性优势。当在完整的验证数据集上评估时,XGB的校准往往比CATB稍好,但当验证数据集限于34.8%的子集时,XGB的校准往往比CATB稍差,其中除了主CPT代码之外至少有一个代码。然而,有一部分接受4次或更多cpt治疗的患者(约占所有患者的8%),CATB提供的估计比XGB更准确。结论:目前基于XGB和主要CPT代码的RC仍然是常规手术风险评估的可行方法,而基于CATB算法并容纳多个CPT代码的高级版本RC可能提供更准确的估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of surgery
Annals of surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
4.40%
发文量
687
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Recurrence and Survival After Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the PRODIGE 24-CCTG PA-6 Randomized Controlled Trial. Validation and Optimization of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Risk Classification of High-risk Pancreas for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreatoduodenectomy for Periampullary Tumors. Efficacy of Self-Expandable Absorbable Stents During Liver Transplant to Minimize Early Biliary Complications. Propensity Score-matched Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minor Liver Resections of the Anterolateral Segments: An International Multicenter Study of 10,517 Cases. Prophylactic Mesh-related Reoperations and Mesh-related Problems During Subsequent Relaparotomies: Long-term Results From the PRIMA Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1