Prediction of clinical outcomes using artificial neural networks for patients with acute biliary pancreatitis [1]

Pancreas

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 90-92

  Yoldaş, Ömer ^a   Koç, Mahmut ^a   Karaköse, Nazile ^a   Klç, Mehmet ^a   Tez, Mesut ^a  

^a ANKARA NUMUNE HOSPITAL   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CLINICAL FEATURE; DISEASE SEVERITY; ECHOGRAPHY; GALLSTONE; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; LETTER; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PANCREATITIS; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; APACHE; BILIARY TRACT DISEASES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); PANCREATITIS; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 38149096333     PISSN: 08853177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31812e964b     Document Type: Letter

References (16)

1. Osvaldt AB, Viero P, Borges da Costa MS, et al. Evaluation of Ranson, Glasgow, APACHE-II, and APACHE-O criteria to predict severity in acute biliary pancreatitis. Int Surg. 2001;86:158-161.
2. Simchuk EJ, Traverso LW, Nukui Y, et al. Computed tomography severity index is a predictor of outcomes for severe pancreatitis. Am J Surg. 2000;179:352-355.
3. Eachempati SR, Hydo LJ, Barie PS. Severity scoring for prognostication in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: comparative analysis of the Ranson score and the APACHE III score. Arch Surg. 2002;137:730-736.
4. Sargent DJ. Comparison of artificial neural networks with other statistical approaches - results from medical data sets. Cancer. 2001;91(8 suppl):1636-1642.
5. Bradley EL 3rd. A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta, Ga, September 11 through 13, 1992. Arch Surg. 1993; 128:586-590.
6. Mofidi R, Duff MD, Madhavan KK, et al. Identification of severe acute pancreatitis using an artificial neural network. Surgery. 2007;141:59-66.
7. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and the use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29-36.
8. Heath DI, Imrie CW. The Hong Kong criteria and severity prediction in acute pancreatitis. Int J Pancreatol. 1994;15:179-185.
9. Wilson C, Heath DI, Imrie CW. Prediction of outcome in acute pancreatitis: a comparative study of APACHE II, clinical assessment and multiple factor scoring systems. Br J Surg. 1990;77:1260-1264.
10. Williams M, Simms HH. Prognostic usefulness of scoring systems in critically ill patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:901-907.
11. Dominguez-Munoz JE, Carballo F, Garcia MJ, et al. Evaluation of the clinical usefulness of APACHE II and SAPS systems in the initial prognostic classification of acute pancreatitis: a multicenter study. Pancreas. 1993;8:682-686.
12. Khan AA, Parekh D, Cho Y, et al. Improved prediction of outcome in patients with severe acute pancreatitis by the APACHE II score at 48 hours after hospital admission compared with theAPACHE II score at admission. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation. Arch Surg. 2002;137:1136-1140.
13. Pofahl WE, Walczak SM, Rhone E, et al. Use of an artificial neural network to predict length of stay in acute pancreatitis. Am Surg. 1998;64:868-872.
14. Keogan MT, Lo JY, Freed KS, et al. Outcome analysis of patients with acute pancreatitis by using an artificial neural network. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:410-419.
15. Halonen KI, Leppaniemi AK, Puolakkainen PA, et al. Severe acute pancreatitis: prognostic factors in 270 consecutive patients. Pancreas. 2000;21:266-271.
16. Tu JV. Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1225-1231.