ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Statistical models versus machine learning approach for competing risks in proctological surgery.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning prediction of long-term postoperative pneumonia risk: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Developing a prediction model for persistent airflow limitation in asthmatic children.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.