Evidence mapPaperPMID 41315106Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2025

Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Risk Score for Stent Outcomes in Post-Bariatric Leak Management: The "Alexandria-Bari-Stent" Tool.

Mohamed Hany, Ehab Elmongui, Walid El Ansari

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mohamed HanyAlexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. mohamed.ashour@alexu.edu.eg.
Ehab ElmonguiIndependent Biostatistical Consultant, Alexandria, Egypt.
Walid El AnsariAjman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates. w.elansari@ajman.ac.ae.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are no prediction models of stent outcomes for leaks after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). The current study developed an artificial intelligence-based model to predict post-MBS stent failure.

methodsProspectively maintained database of patients with post-MBS leaks was used for model development (Center I, N = 250); external validation employed patients from another hospital (Center II, N = 150). Outcome definition was failure of the first (primary/initial) stent implantation to resolve the leak, i.e., lack of primary closure. Ranking of variables was performed, 11 machine learning algorithms were tested, the best model was selected, and a stent failure point-based risk scoring system was derived, with further external validation, calibration, and decision curve analysis.

resultsThe development cohort (training sample, Center I) had 27.6% failed stents/72.4% successes; the external validation cohort (Center II) had 30% failures/70% successes. The Lasso logistic regression model exhibited the best performance. Eight variables contributed to the model's predictive performance (obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, diabetes, hepatomegaly, hyperlipidemia, body mass index, Niti-S18 stent, gastrojejunal anastomosis leak), and nine others had varying contributions (revisional surgery, Niti-S23 stent, time to stent implantation, leak size > 1 cm, age, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, esophagogastric junction leak, Hanaro 21 stent, male sex). The clinical point-based stent failure risk system showed that scores ≤ 7 had very low failure risk (<1%), scores 8-47 = low risk (1-5%), 48-77 = moderate risk (5.1-15%), 78-117 = high risk (15.1-50%), and scores ≥198 were associated with extremely high failure risk (>96%). The model's external validation demonstrated excellent discriminatory power, distinguishing between patients with/without the outcome with 0.85 area under the ROC curve (95% CI: 0.76-0.93), 80% sensitivity (95% CI: 65.4-90.4%), 82.9% specificity (95% CI: 74.3-89.5%), and 66.7% positive predictive value (95% CI: 52.4-79.0%). The negative predictive value was 90.6% (95% CI: 82.9-95.6%) indicating that the model was particularly effective at identifying patients unlikely to fail. Area under the precision-recall curve was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70-0.89) indicating strong performance in identifying true positives while minimizing false positives. Calibration was acceptable (Brier score = 0.15). Decision curve analysis demonstrated higher net benefit when used in clinical decision-making across a broad range of threshold probabilities (0.10-0.80) compared to treating all patients or treating none.

conclusionsA machine learning model (Alexandria-Bari-Stent) can predict post-MBS stent failure. External validation displayed high accuracy, good sensitivity/specificity, and excellent negative predictive value indicating good discriminative ability. Clinically, the model is more reliable for ruling out stent failure than confirming it, making it especially useful in reassuring low-risk post-MBS leakage patients. Patient's general status, metabolic health, and systemic factors appeared to play a more critical role than previously recognized, complementary to, not in conflict with, established technical and local factors that influence successful stent outcomes for leak management. This prompts the need for a more holistic view of leak patients who are candidates for stenting. Prospective multicenter trials are needed to confirm the performance of the Alexandria‑Bari‑Stent model and the role of metabolic stabilization and medically optimizing the patient for better outcomes.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakBariatric SurgeryMachine LearningObesity, MorbidStentsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsArtificial intelligenceBariatric surgery complicationsEndoscopic stentGastric bypassLeakPerforationSleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID41315106
PMCPMC12722429

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.