Abstract
Background Obstructive jaundice is a common problem associated with diverse etiologies which has not been thoroughly investigated in large-scale cohorts. Our study involved the largest retrospective cohort of obstructive jaundice to date, exploring the spectrum of diseases while establishing a diagnostic system with machine learning (ML) methods based on routine laboratory tests.
Methods This study involves two retrospective observational cohorts from China. The biliary surgery cohort (BS cohort, n=349) served for initial data exploration and external validation of ML models, while the large general cohort (LG cohort, n=5726) enabled comprehensive data analysis and ML model construction. Interpretable ML techniques were employed to derive insights from the models.
Results The LG cohort exhibited a more diverse disease spectrum compared to the BS cohort, with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, common bile duct stones, distal cholangiocarcinoma, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, and acute pancreatitis (non-calculous) identified as the top five causes of obstructive jaundice. Traditional serum markers such as CA 19-9 and CEA did not emerge as standalone diagnostic markers for obstructive jaundice. Leveraging ML techniques, we developed two models collectively named as the MOLT model: one effectively distinguishes between benign and malignant causes (AUROC=0.862), while the other provides nuanced insights by further categorizing malignancies into three tiers and benign diseases into two (ACC=0.777). Interpretable ML tools revealed key features contributing to the decision-making process of each model.
Conclusions Through our study, we uncovered the diagnostic potential of routine laboratory tests in obstructive jaundice, enabling the development of a practical diagnostic tool based on interpretable ML models. These findings may pave the way for personalized and user-friendly diagnosis of obstructive jaundice, thereby aiding clinical decision-making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DC4B8
Funding Statement
Sichuan Provincial Commission of Health Science Project (20PJ059); Sichuan Science and Technology Program (Grant No.2022YSF0060, Grant No.2022YSF0114, Grant No.2022NSFSC0680, Grant No. 2023YFS0094); 135 project for disciplines of excellence Clinical Research Incubation Project, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (20HXFH021); 135 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (ZYJC21049); The Key Research and Development Program sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Chengdu (Grant No. 2021-YF05-00065-SN).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee Biomedical Research, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, involving two retrospective observational cohorts from a single center (West China Hospital, Chengdu, China).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
One of the contributing authors have been omitted during the initial submission, which has been corrected by this revision.
