BackgroundAs more and more researchers are turning to big data for new opportunities of biomedical discoveries, machine learning models, as the backbone of big data analysis, are mentioned more often in biomedical journals. However, owing to the inherent complexity of machine learning methods, they are prone to misuse. Because of the flexibility in specifying machine learning models, the results are often insufficiently reported in research articles, hindering reliable assessment of model validity and consistent interpretation of model outputs.ObjectiveTo attain a set of guidelines on the use of machine learning predictive models within clinical settings to make sure the models are correctly applied and sufficiently reported so that true discoveries can be distinguished from random coincidence.MethodsA multidisciplinary panel of machine learning experts, clinicians, and traditional statisticians were interviewed, using an iterative process in accordance with the Delphi method.ResultsThe process produced a set of guidelines that consists of (1) a list of reporting items to be included in a research article and (2) a set of practical sequential steps for developing predictive models.ConclusionsA set of guidelines was generated to enable correct application of machine learning models and consistent reporting of model specifications and results in biomedical research. We believe that such guidelines will accelerate the adoption of big data analysis, particularly with machine learning methods, in the biomedical research community.

No abstract

No abstract

The use of a transanal drainage tube in anterior resection for rectal cancer may be a simple, safe, and effective means of preventing or reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and bleeding. A larger-scale single or multi-center prospective randomized study or a meta-analysis including similar studies is necessary for further elucidation of this issue.

BackgroundTo date, our ability to accurately identify patients at high risk from suicidal behaviour, and thus to target interventions, has been fairly limited. This study examined a large pool of factors that are potentially associated with suicide risk from the comprehensive electronic medical record (EMR) and to derive a predictive model for 1–6 month risk.Methods7,399 patients undergoing suicide risk assessment were followed up for 180 days. The dataset was divided into a derivation and validation cohorts of 4,911 and 2,488 respectively. Clinicians used an 18-point checklist of known risk factors to divide patients into low, medium, or high risk. Their predictive ability was compared with a risk stratification model derived from the EMR data. The model was based on the continuation-ratio ordinal regression method coupled with lasso (which stands for least absolute shrinkage and selection operator).ResultsIn the year prior to suicide assessment, 66.8% of patients attended the emergency department (ED) and 41.8% had at least one hospital admission. Administrative and demographic data, along with information on prior self-harm episodes, as well as mental and physical health diagnoses were predictive of high-risk suicidal behaviour. Clinicians using the 18-point checklist were relatively poor in predicting patients at high-risk in 3 months (AUC 0.58, 95% CIs: 0.50 – 0.66). The model derived EMR was superior (AUC 0.79, 95% CIs: 0.72 – 0.84). At specificity of 0.72 (95% CIs: 0.70-0.73) the EMR model had sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CIs: 0.56-0.83).ConclusionPredictive models applied to data from the EMR could improve risk stratification of patients presenting with potential suicidal behaviour. The predictive factors include known risks for suicide, but also other information relating to general health and health service utilisation.