Validation of the PreOperative Score to predict Post-Operative Mortality (POSPOM) in Dutch non-cardiac surgery patients

Artificial Intelligence-enabled Decision Support in Surgery: State-of-the-art and Future Directions

OBJECTIVE

To summarize state-of-the-art artificial intelligence-enabled decision support in surgery and to quantify deficiencies in scientific rigor and reporting.

BACKGROUND

To positively affect surgical care, decision-support models must exceed current reporting guideline requirements by performing external and real-time validation, enrolling adequate sample sizes, reporting model precision, assessing performance across vulnerable populations, and achieving clinical implementation; the degree to which published models meet these criteria is unknown.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched from their inception to September 21, 2022 for articles describing artificial intelligence-enabled decision support in surgery that uses preoperative or intraoperative data elements to predict complications within 90 days of surgery. Scientific rigor and reporting criteria were assessed and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

RESULTS

Sample size ranged from 163-2,882,526, with 8/36 articles (22.2%) featuring sample sizes of less than 2000; 7 of these 8 articles (87.5%) had below-average (<0.83) area under the receiver operating characteristic or accuracy. Overall, 29 articles (80.6%) performed internal validation only, 5 (13.8%) performed external validation, and 2 (5.6%) performed real-time validation. Twenty-three articles (63.9%) reported precision. No articles reported performance across sociodemographic categories. Thirteen articles (36.1%) presented a framework that could be used for clinical implementation; none assessed clinical implementation efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial intelligence-enabled decision support in surgery is limited by reliance on internal validation, small sample sizes that risk overfitting and sacrifice predictive performance, and failure to report confidence intervals, precision, equity analyses, and clinical implementation. Researchers should strive to improve scientific quality.

Comparison of Prognostic Value of 10 Biochemical Indices at Admission for Prediction Postoperative Myocardial Injury and Hospital Mortality in Patients with Osteoporotic Hip Fracture

Aim: To evaluate the prognostic impact at admission of 10 biochemical indices for prediction postoperative myocardial injury (PMI) and/or hospital death in hip fracture (HF) patients. Methods: In 1273 consecutive patients with HF (mean age 82.9 ± 8.7 years, 73.5% women), clinical and laboratory parameters were collected prospectively, and outcomes were recorded. Multiple logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic analyses (the area under the curve, AUC) were preformed, the number needed to predict (NNP) outcome was calculated. Results: Age ≥ 80 years and IHD were the most prominent clinical factors associated with both PMI (with cardiac troponin I rise) and in-hospital death. PMI occurred in 555 (43.6%) patients and contributed to 80.3% (49/61) of all deaths (mortality rate 8.8% vs. 1.9% in non-PMI patients). The most accurate biochemical predictive markers were parathyroid hormone > 6.8 pmol/L, urea > 7.5 mmol/L, 25(OH)vitamin D < 25 nmol/L, albumin < 33 g/L, and ratios gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) to alanine aminotransferase > 2.5, urea/albumin ≥ 2.0 and GGT/albumin ≥ 7.0; the AUC for developing PMI ranged between 0.782 and 0.742 (NNP: 1.84−2.13), the AUC for fatal outcome ranged from 0.803 to 0.722, (NNP: 3.77−9.52). Conclusions: In HF patients, easily accessible biochemical indices at admission substantially improve prediction of hospital outcomes, especially in the aged >80 years with IHD.