Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 14, 2026

Author Spotlight: Advancing Early Detection and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Tumors
Published on: February 16, 2024
Development of a Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model for Anastomotic Leakage Following Gastric Cancer Surgery
Wenxiang Ma1, Shengbing Zhao2, Nan Du1
1The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, PR China.
Abstract:
BackgroundThe incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) following radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer ranges from 2.1% to 14.6%, with mortality rates up to 50%. Existing predictive methods lack both timeliness and accuracy. This study aimed to develop an early AL risk prediction model through machine learning-driven integration of multidimensional clinical data.MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled 1588 patients undergoing radical gastrectomy at two tertiary medical centers. AL diagnosis adhered to international consensus criteria. Thirty-six perioperative features were analyzed, including demographics, comorbidities, tumor pathology characteristics, surgical parameters, and dynamic laboratory indicators (assessed at preoperative days 4-6, ≤3 days preoperatively, and ≤3 days postoperatively). LASSO regression identified 11 core predictors; five machine learning models were optimized through 5-fold cross-validation with external validation in an independent cohort.ResultsThe LASSO-Logistic model identified key predictors: CRP ≤3 days postoperatively (β = 0.54), age group (β = 0.43), history of abdominal surgery (β = 0.40), and albumin (β = -0.37). The model demonstrated optimal external validation performance (AUC = 0.871; sensitivity = 71.2%; specificity = 87.3%; negative predictive value [NPV] = 96.9%). In sensitivity-optimized mode (threshold = 0.250), NPV increased to 98.9% (sensitivity = 93.2%).ConclusionThe LASSO-Logistic model, utilizing postoperative CRP (within 3 days) as its core predictor, provides precise early warning for anastomotic leakage risk. External validation demonstrated moderate generalizability with an AUC difference of 0.054 between training and validation sets. Multicenter validation remains essential for clinical translation.
More Related Videos
07:13Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model
Published on: April 18, 2025
04:05Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy for the Treatment of Anastomotic Leakage after Total Gastrectomy with Esophagojejunostomy
Published on: August 22, 2025