Omar Elfanagely1, Yoshiko Toyoda2, Sammy Othman2, Joseph A Mellia2, Marten Basta3, Tony Liu4, Konrad Kording5, Lyle Ungar4, John P Fischer2. 1. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: oelfanagely@gmail.com. 2. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 4. Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) has garnered increasing attention as a means to quantitatively analyze the growing and complex medical data to improve individualized patient care. We herein aim to critically examine the current state of ML in predicting surgical outcomes, evaluate the quality of currently available research, and propose areas of improvement for future uses of ML in surgery. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were reviewed under search syntax "machine learning" and "surgery" for papers published between 2015 and 2020. RESULTS: Of the initial 2677 studies, 45 papers met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen different subspecialties were represented with neurosurgery being most common. The most frequently used ML algorithms were random forest (n = 19), artificial neural network (n = 17), and logistic regression (n = 17). Common outcomes included postoperative mortality, complications, patient reported quality of life and pain improvement. All studies which compared ML algorithms to conventional studies which used area under the curve (AUC) to measure accuracy found improved outcome prediction with ML models. CONCLUSIONS: While still in its early stages, ML models offer surgeons an opportunity to capitalize on the myriad of clinical data available and improve individualized patient care. Limitations included heterogeneous outcome and imperfect quality of some of the papers. We therefore urge future research to agree upon methods of outcome reporting and require basic quality standards.
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) has garnered increasing attention as a means to quantitatively analyze the growing and complex medical data to improve individualized patient care. We herein aim to critically examine the current state of ML in predicting surgical outcomes, evaluate the quality of currently available research, and propose areas of improvement for future uses of ML in surgery. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were reviewed under search syntax "machine learning" and "surgery" for papers published between 2015 and 2020. RESULTS: Of the initial 2677 studies, 45 papers met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen different subspecialties were represented with neurosurgery being most common. The most frequently used ML algorithms were random forest (n = 19), artificial neural network (n = 17), and logistic regression (n = 17). Common outcomes included postoperative mortality, complications, patient reported quality of life and pain improvement. All studies which compared ML algorithms to conventional studies which used area under the curve (AUC) to measure accuracy found improved outcome prediction with ML models. CONCLUSIONS: While still in its early stages, ML models offer surgeons an opportunity to capitalize on the myriad of clinical data available and improve individualized patient care. Limitations included heterogeneous outcome and imperfect quality of some of the papers. We therefore urge future research to agree upon methods of outcome reporting and require basic quality standards.
Authors: Riccardo Cocchieri; Bertus van de Wetering; Sjoerd van Tuijl; Iman Mousavi; Robert Riezebos; Bastian de Mol Journal: J Cardiovasc Dev Dis Date: 2022-08-11
Authors: Robert T van Kooten; Renu R Bahadoer; Bouwdewijn Ter Buurkes de Vries; Michel W J M Wouters; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Henk H Hartgrink; Hein Putter; Johan L Dikken Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 2.885
Authors: Ben Li; Tiam Feridooni; Cesar Cuen-Ojeda; Teruko Kishibe; Charles de Mestral; Muhammad Mamdani; Mohammed Al-Omran Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-01-19