Diagnostics (Mar 2023)
Prediction of Perforated and Nonperforated Acute Appendicitis Using Machine Learning-Based Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
Background: The primary aim of this study was to create a machine learning (ML) model that can predict perforated and nonperforated acute appendicitis (AAp) with high accuracy and to demonstrate the clinical interpretability of the model with explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Method: A total of 1797 patients who underwent appendectomy with a preliminary diagnosis of AAp between May 2009 and March 2022 were included in the study. Considering the histopathological examination, the patients were divided into two groups as AAp (n = 1465) and non-AAp (NA; n = 332); the non-AAp group is also referred to as negative appendectomy. Subsequently, patients confirmed to have AAp were divided into two subgroups: nonperforated (n = 1161) and perforated AAp (n = 304). The missing values in the data set were assigned using the Random Forest method. The Boruta variable selection method was used to identify the most important variables associated with AAp and perforated AAp. The class imbalance problem in the data set was resolved by the SMOTE method. The CatBoost model was used to classify AAp and non-AAp patients and perforated and nonperforated AAp patients. The performance of the model in the holdout test set was evaluated with accuracy, F1- score, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). The SHAP method, which is one of the XAI methods, was used to interpret the model results. Results: The CatBoost model could distinguish AAp patients from non-AAp individuals with an accuracy of 88.2% (85.6–90.8%), while distinguishing perforated AAp patients from nonperforated AAp individuals with an accuracy of 92% (89.6–94.5%). According to the results of the SHAP method applied to the CatBoost model, it was observed that high total bilirubin, WBC, Netrophil, WLR, NLR, CRP, and WNR values, and low PNR, PDW, and MCV values increased the prediction of AAp biochemically. On the other hand, high CRP, Age, Total Bilirubin, PLT, RDW, WBC, MCV, WLR, NLR, and Neutrophil values, and low Lymphocyte, PDW, MPV, and PNR values were observed to increase the prediction of perforated AAp. Conclusion: For the first time in the literature, a new approach combining ML and XAI methods was tried to predict AAp and perforated AAp, and both clinical conditions were predicted with high accuracy. This new approach proved successful in showing how well which demographic and biochemical parameters could explain the current clinical situation in predicting AAp and perforated AAp.
Keywords
