ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) approaches have become increasingly popular in predicting surgical outcomes. However, it is unknown whether they are superior to traditional statistical methods such as logistic regression (LR). This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the performance of ML vs LR models in predicting postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed through December 2022. The primary outcome was the discriminatory performance of ML vs LR models as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). A meta-analysis was then performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 62 LR models and 143 ML models were included across 38 studies. On average, the best-performing ML models had a significantly higher AUC than the LR models (ΔAUC, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.09; P < .001). Similarly, on average, the best-performing ML models had a significantly higher logit (AUC) than the LR models (Δlogit [AUC], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.58; P < .001). Approximately half of studies (44%) were found to have a low risk of bias. Upon a subset analysis of only low-risk studies, the difference in logit (AUC) remained significant (ML vs LR, Δlogit [AUC], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.14-0.66; P = .009). CONCLUSION: We found a significant improvement in discriminatory ability when using ML over LR algorithms in predicting postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing GI surgery. Subsequent efforts should establish standardized protocols for both developing and reporting studies using ML models and explore the practical implementation of these models.
