ArticlePatient safety in surgery2026
Machine learning prediction model for surgical site infections after major abdominal surgery.
Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Algorithmic bias in surgical risk prediction models and its impact on patient safety: a review.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) continue to exert a substantial burden on healthcare systems, particularly in resource-limited settings where they contribute to prolonged hospitalizations, escalated costs, and increased patient morbidity. The ability to accurately predict SSI risk is essential for implementing targeted prevention strategies and optimizing resource allocation, especially in constrained environments.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from 525 patients who underwent major gastrointestinal surgery at Al-Thora General Hospital, the sole Ibb University-affiliated tertiary hospital in Yemen, between January 2018 and December 2023. Four machine learning models (Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, and Neural Network) were developed using 38 preoperative and intraoperative variables. Temporal validation was performed, with data from 2018 to 2022 used for model training (n = 420) and 2023 data (n = 105) reserved for testing. Model performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), calibration metrics, and decision curve analysis. Subgroup analyses assessed model fairness across demographic and clinical strata.
resultsThe observed SSI rate was 16.2%, consistent across both training and test sets. XGBoost achieved the highest predictive performance (AUROC: 0.934; 95% CI: 0.891–0.967; AUPRC: 0.809), outperforming logistic regression (AUROC: 0.868, p = 0.012) and neural network (AUROC: 0.890, p = 0.038) models. Random Forest also demonstrated competitive accuracy (AUROC: 0.924; AUPRC: 0.787). Robust performance was maintained across critical subgroups, with XGBoost yielding an AUROC of 0.967 among elderly patients and Random Forest achieving an AUROC of 0.979 among diabetic patients. All models systematically overestimated SSI risk (calibration slopes > 2.0), though XGBoost exhibited the best calibration (Brier score: 0.080). Decision curve analysis confirmed clinical utility within probability thresholds of 15–35%.
conclusionMachine learning models, specifically XGBoost and Random Forest, can accurately predict SSI risk following major gastrointestinal surgery in the Yemeni healthcare context. Despite calibration limitations, these models demonstrate strong discriminative ability and clinical utility, supporting their use for risk stratification in resource-limited settings. The development of a simplified risk score offers a pragmatic alternative for implementation in environments with limited technological infrastructure.
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.