ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator Accuracy When Operative Risk is Represented by the Principal CPT® code Versus Many Codes.

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Mark E Cohen, Yaoming Liu, Bruce L Hall, Clifford Y Ko
{"title":"ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator Accuracy When Operative Risk is Represented by the Principal CPT® code Versus Many Codes.","authors":"Mark E Cohen, Yaoming Liu, Bruce L Hall, Clifford Y Ko","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether ACS NSQIP risk calculator (RC) accuracy can be improved by incorporating CPT codes beyond the principal code.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Because of technical limitations, past and current RC algorithms have relied only on the principal CPT code, represented as a logit score, to adjust for procedure-related risk. RC performance was evaluated when using a new machine learning (ML) algorithm capable of incorporating an indeterminate number of high cardinality categorical variables (in this case, multiple CPT codes).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ACS-NSQIP data from 5,020,713 patients from 2016-2020 were used. Predictive accuracy, for 13 outcomes, was assessed when the RC relied on, in addition to standard predictors, a logit score associated with the principal CPT code (extreme gradient boosting ML, XGB), or up to 21 codes in native categorical form (CatBoost ML, CATB). 80% of cases were used for training and 20% for validation. Discrimination (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and area under the precision recall curve) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics) were assessed on the entire validation dataset and on a subset of that data that included only patients who had at least 1 CPT code recorded beyond the principal code.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no consistent accuracy advantage of CATB over XGB with respect to discrimination. XGB tended to have slightly better calibration than CATB when evaluated on the complete validation dataset but tended to have slightly worse calibration compared to CATB when the validation dataset was limited to the subset of 34.8% of cases where there was at least one code in addition to the principal CPT code. However, there was a subset of patients with 4 or more CPTs (about 8% of all patients) where CATB provided meaningfully more accurate estimates than XGB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While the current RC, relying on XGB and the principal CPT code, remains a viable approach to routine surgical risk assessment, an advanced version of the RC, based on the CATB algorithm and accommodating multiple CPT codes, may provide more accurate estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006661","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether ACS NSQIP risk calculator (RC) accuracy can be improved by incorporating CPT codes beyond the principal code.

Background: Because of technical limitations, past and current RC algorithms have relied only on the principal CPT code, represented as a logit score, to adjust for procedure-related risk. RC performance was evaluated when using a new machine learning (ML) algorithm capable of incorporating an indeterminate number of high cardinality categorical variables (in this case, multiple CPT codes).

Methods: ACS-NSQIP data from 5,020,713 patients from 2016-2020 were used. Predictive accuracy, for 13 outcomes, was assessed when the RC relied on, in addition to standard predictors, a logit score associated with the principal CPT code (extreme gradient boosting ML, XGB), or up to 21 codes in native categorical form (CatBoost ML, CATB). 80% of cases were used for training and 20% for validation. Discrimination (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and area under the precision recall curve) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics) were assessed on the entire validation dataset and on a subset of that data that included only patients who had at least 1 CPT code recorded beyond the principal code.

Results: There was no consistent accuracy advantage of CATB over XGB with respect to discrimination. XGB tended to have slightly better calibration than CATB when evaluated on the complete validation dataset but tended to have slightly worse calibration compared to CATB when the validation dataset was limited to the subset of 34.8% of cases where there was at least one code in addition to the principal CPT code. However, there was a subset of patients with 4 or more CPTs (about 8% of all patients) where CATB provided meaningfully more accurate estimates than XGB.

Conclusions: While the current RC, relying on XGB and the principal CPT code, remains a viable approach to routine surgical risk assessment, an advanced version of the RC, based on the CATB algorithm and accommodating multiple CPT codes, may provide more accurate estimates.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of surgery
Annals of surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
4.40%
发文量
687
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信