©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Sep 27, 2025; 17(9): 107977
Published online Sep 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.107977
Published online Sep 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.107977
Table 2 Performance metrics for five different models in the training cohort
| Model | AUC (95%CI) | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
| RF | 0.909 (0.844-0.974) | 0.891 | 0.857 | 0.893 | 0.305 | 0.991 |
| LR | 0.876 (0.800-0.953) | 0.785 | 0.809 | 0.783 | 0.170 | 0.986 |
| KNN | 0.884 (0.825-0.954) | 0.920 | 0.714 | 0.932 | 0.365 | 0.983 |
| XGBoost | 0.879 (0.812-0.945) | 0.829 | 0.761 | 0.833 | 0.200 | 0.984 |
| SVM | 0.870 (0.786-0.955) | 0.859 | 0.857 | 0.859 | 0.250 | 0.990 |
- Citation: Yang WS, Su Y, Li YQ, Hu JB, Liu MD, Liu L. Prediction of parastomal hernia in patients undergoing preventive ostomy after rectal cancer resection using machine learning. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(9): 107977
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v17/i9/107977.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.107977