Search

Background: Machine learning (ML) has seen an increase in application, and is an important element of a digital evolution. The role of ML within upper gastrointestinal surgery for malignancies has not been evaluated properly in the literature. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of ML applications within upper gastrointestinal surgery for malignancies., Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. Studies were only included when they described machine learning in upper gastrointestinal surgery for malignancies. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to determine the methodological quality of studies. The accuracy and area under the curve were evaluated, representing the predictive performances of ML models., Results: From a total of 1821 articles, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies received a moderate risk-of-bias score. The majority of these studies focused on neural networks (n = 9), multiple machine learning (n = 8), and random forests (n = 3). Remaining studies involved radiomics (n = 3), support vector machines (n = 3), and decision trees (n = 1). Purposes of ML included predominantly prediction of metastasis, detection of risk factors, prediction of survival, and prediction of postoperative complications. Other purposes were predictions of TNM staging, chemotherapy response, tumor resectability, and optimal therapy., Conclusions: Machine Learning algorithms seem to contribute to the prediction of postoperative complications and the course of disease after upper gastrointestinal surgery for malignancies. However, due to the retrospective character of ML studies, these results require trials or prospective studies to validate this application of ML., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Machine learning (ML) has been introduced in various fields of healthcare. In colorectal surgery, the role of ML has yet to be reported. In this systematic review, an overview of machine learning models predicting surgical outcomes after colorectal surgery is provided. Methods: Databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for studies using machine learning models for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. To be eligible for inclusion, studies needed to apply machine learning models for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Absence of machine learning or colorectal surgery or studies reporting on reviews, children, study abstracts were excluded. The Probast risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of machine learning models. Results: A total of 1821 studies were analysed, resulting in the inclusion of 31 articles. A vast proportion of ML algorithms have been used to predict the course of disease and response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Radiomics have been applied most frequently, along with predictive accuracies up to 91%. However, most studies included a retrospective study design without external validation or calibration. Conclusions: Machine learning models have shown promising potential in predicting surgical outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, large-scale data is warranted to bridge the gap between calibration and external validation. Clinical implementation is needed to demonstrate the contribution of ML within daily practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a response to a comment on a published manuscript in the Obesity Surgery journal. The authors conducted a systematic search in various bibliographic databases to provide an overview of machine learning applications in bariatric surgery. They included subdivisions of artificial intelligence (AI), such as machine learning and radiomics, and used MeSH terms to ensure comprehensive search coverage. The authors followed Cochrane Library guidelines for selecting relevant databases and excluded non-English articles to optimize time and resources. They emphasize the importance of critically reading and understanding the methodology of articles before making conclusions. The document also includes declarations regarding ethics approval, consent to participate, and conflict of interest. [Extracted from the article]