Retrospective cohort study demonstrates strong predictive accuracy of an AI-assisted surgical site infection calculator in spine surgery patients, highlighting its potential for preoperative care.
Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objectives Postoperative surgical site infections (SSI) remain a major cause of morbidity and cost in spine surgery. Existing risk calculators have limited applicability in this population. This study introduces a literature-informed, point-based SSI calculator designed to complement standard preoperative assessment. GPT-4 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) was used solely for structured literature synthesis and preliminary variable weighting. Methods Adult patients undergoing spine surgery at a single academic center (2019-2025) were retrospectively reviewed. A 29-variable AI-assisted risk calculator integrating demographic, clinical, laboratory, and surgical factors was developed. SSI was defined using CDC/NHSN criteria with a 90-day window. Risk calculator performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis, bootstrap optimization correction, and calibration and decision curve analyses. A stratified analysis was performed comparing performance by procedure types and spinal regions. Results A total of 338 patients were included (SSI: 177; controls: 161). Median risk scores were significantly higher in infected vs non-infected patients (18 vs 10; P < .001). Discrimination was strong (AUC 0.7978, 95% CI 0.7521-0.8427). The optimal threshold was 17 points, yielding 61.0% sensitivity, 84.2% specificity, and 72.1% accuracy. Bootstrap validation showed minimal optimism (corrected AUC 0.7974). Calibration was excellent (calibration-in-the-large <0.001; slope 1.045; Brier score 0.1833). At the study prevalence (52.3%), PPV was 0.8106 and NPV 0.6540, with expected PPV reduction at real-world prevalence. Patients with scores ≥17 had significantly higher infection risk (RR 2.42; OR 8.31; P < .001). Stratified analyses showed consistent performance across procedure types and spinal regions. Conclusion This internally validated, AI-assisted SSI calculator demonstrated strong discrimination and calibration. Prospective external validation is needed to determine clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khalsa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: