Systematic evaluation of machine learning models for postoperative surgical site infection prediction

Anna M van Boekel, Siri L van der Meijden, Sesmu M Arbous, Rob G H H Nelissen, Karin E Veldkamp, Emma B Nieswaag, Kim F T Jochems, Jeroen Holtz, Annekee van IJlzinga Veenstra, Jeroen Reijman, Ype de Jong, Harry van Goor, Maryse A Wiewel, Jan W Schoones, Bart F Geerts and Mark G J de Boer

PLOS ONE, 2024, vol. 19, issue 12, 1-17

Abstract: Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) lead to increased mortality and morbidity, as well as increased healthcare costs. Multiple models for the prediction of this serious surgical complication have been developed, with an increasing use of machine learning (ML) tools. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance as well as the methodological quality of validated ML models for the prediction of SSIs. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library was performed from inception until July 2023. Exclusion criteria were the absence of reported model validation, SSIs as part of a composite adverse outcome, and pediatric populations. ML performance measures were evaluated, and ML performances were compared to regression-based methods for studies that reported both methods. Risk of bias (ROB) of the studies was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Results: Of the 4,377 studies screened, 24 were included in this review, describing 85 ML models. Most models were only internally validated (81%). The C-statistic was the most used performance measure (reported in 96% of the studies) and only two studies reported calibration metrics. A total of 116 different predictors were described, of which age, steroid use, sex, diabetes, and smoking were most frequently (100% to 75%) incorporated. Thirteen studies compared ML models to regression-based models and showed a similar performance of both modelling methods. For all included studies, the overall ROB was high or unclear. Conclusions: A multitude of ML models for the prediction of SSIs are available, with large variability in performance. However, most models lacked external validation, performance was reported limitedly, and the risk of bias was high. In studies describing both ML models and regression-based models, one modelling method did not outperform the other.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312968 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 12968&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0312968

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312968

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().