Cited by 35

Neural networks as a prognostic tool of surgical risk in lung resections

Esteva, Hugo, Marchevsky, Alberto, Núñez, Tomás, Luna, Carlos, Esteva, Mercedes·2002·The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Abstract

Background Assessment of surgical risk in patients undergoing pulmonary resection is a fundamental goal for thoracic surgeons. Usually used risk indices do not predict the individual outcome. Neural networks (NN) are artificial intelligence software models that have been used for estimation of several prognostic situations. Methods Ninety-six clinical and laboratory features from each one of 141 patients who underwent lung resection were retrospectively collected. The variables were used as input data for the software. Cases were divided into a training set (n = 113) and a test set (n = 28). Four NN models were trained using the data from the training set: (1) using all variables; (2) using only the Goldman and Torrington scores; (3) using all variables except for the two scores. A fourth NN was programmed with all variables to estimate the development of major postoperative complications. The trained NN models were tested with the test set data. Results The NN using all variables with or without the scores were able to correctly classify all 28 test cases against actual outcome. The NN using all variables also estimated major postoperative complications correctly in all 28 test cases. The NN using only two indices (Goldman and Torrington) yielded 6 of 28 errors in classification. Conclusions These data suggest that NN can integrate results from multiple data predicting the individual outcome for patients, rather than assigning them to less-precise risk group categories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0003-4975(02)03418-5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Esteva H et al. investigated artificial neural networks for estimating postoperative outcomes following lung resection; neural networks demonstrated greater flexibility and individualized predictive power, achieving nearly 100% sensitivity and specificity for patient outcomes.

    “Esteva H, et al. investigated the use of artificial NN—modeled after the human neural system—for estimating postoperative outcomes following lung resection, comparing them to conventional risk indices. NN demonstrated greater flexibility and individualized predictive power, achieving nearly 100% sensitivity and specificity for patient outcomes [44].”
  • Traditional risk assessment tools such as the Goldman index for cardiac risk and the Torrington index for respiratory risk are effective in categorizing patients into broad risk categories but fall short in providing precise, individualized predictions of operative risk.

    “Traditional risk assessment tools, such as the Goldman index for cardiac risk and the Torrington index for respiratory risk, are effective in categorizing patients into broad risk categories but fall short in providing precise, individualized predictions of operative risk [44].”

Authors
Esteva, H., Marchevsky, A., Núñez, T., Luna, C., & Esteva, M.
Venue
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-05
Volume
73
Issue
5
Pages
1576-1581
ISSN
0003-4975
Cited by
35
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review