Validity of Machine Learning in Detecting Complicated Appendicitis in a Resource-Limited Setting: Findings from Vietnam

Background Complicated appendicitis, a potentially life-threatening condition, is common. However, the diagnosis of this condition is mainly based on physician's experiences and advanced diagnostic equipment. This study built and validated machine learning models to facilitate the detection of complicated appendicitis. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on medical charts of all patients undergoing a laparoscopic appendectomy at a city hospital during 2016-2020. The synthetic minority over-sampling technique (SMOTE) was used to adjust for the imbalance. Multiple classification approaches were used to train and validate models including support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), K-nearest neighbor (KNN), logistic regression (LR), artificial neural network (ANN), and gradient boosting (GB). Results Among 1,950 patients included in the data analysis, there were 483 patients identified as having complicated appendicitis (24.8%). Based on data without SMOTE adjustment for imbalance, the accuracy levels and AUCs were high in all models using different parameters, ranging from 0.687 to 0.815. After adjusting for imbalance data using SMOTE, AUC and accuracy levels in the models using imbalance adjusted data were higher. Of these, the GB had all AUC and accuracy values of approximately 0.8 or more in both adjusted and unadjusted data. Conclusions Machine learning approaches including SVM, DT, logistic, KNN, ANN, and GB have a high level of validity in classifying patients with complicated appendicitis and patients without complicated appendicitis. Among these, GB had the highest level of validity and should be used or further validated. Our study indicates the beneficial potentials of machine learning techniques in a clinical setting in general and in the diagnosis of complicated appendicitis in particular.

[1]  H. Erbay,et al.  The Use of Machine Learning Approaches for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis , 2020, Emergency medicine international.

[2]  A. Romualdi,et al.  Diagnosis and classification of pediatric acute appendicitis by artificial intelligence methods: An investigator-independent approach , 2019, PloS one.

[3]  S. Allen,et al.  Complicated appendicitis and considerations for interval appendectomy , 2018, JAAPA : official journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants.

[4]  G. Adam,et al.  Diagnostic prediction of complicated appendicitis by combined clinical and radiological appendicitis severity index (APSI) , 2018, European radiology.

[5]  G. Lippi,et al.  Epidemiology and outcomes of acute abdominal pain in a large urban Emergency Department: retrospective analysis of 5,340 cases. , 2016, Annals of translational medicine.

[6]  Aneel Bhangu,et al.  Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management , 2015, The Lancet.

[7]  N. Shapiro,et al.  Diagnosing Appendicitis: Evidence-Based Review of the Diagnostic Approach in 2014 , 2014, The western journal of emergency medicine.

[8]  A. Khorram-Manesh,et al.  A Model to Select Patients Who May Benefit from Antibiotic Therapy as the First Line Treatment of Acute Appendicitis at High Probability , 2014, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[9]  L. Stassen,et al.  Discriminating between simple and perforated appendicitis. , 2012, The Journal of surgical research.

[10]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[11]  R. Andersson,et al.  The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score: A Tool for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis that Outperforms the Alvarado Score , 2008, World Journal of Surgery.

[12]  P. Ziprin,et al.  Artificial Neural Networks: Useful Aid in Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis , 2008, World Journal of Surgery.

[13]  W. Woodward,et al.  Disconnect Between Incidence of Nonperforated and Perforated Appendicitis: Implications for Pathophysiology and Management , 2007, Annals of surgery.

[14]  Gustavo E. A. P. A. Batista,et al.  A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data , 2004, SKDD.

[15]  Mohamed Bekkar,et al.  Evaluation Measures for Models Assessment over Imbalanced Data Sets , 2013 .

[16]  Chung-Ho Hsieh,et al.  Novel solutions for an old disease: diagnosis of acute appendicitis with random forest, support vector machines, and artificial neural networks. , 2011, Surgery.

[17]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..