pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31539 · v1 · pith:FAWYEGEHnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.LG· q-bio.QM

Automated Prediction of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Using Preoperative Computed Tomography

Ashok Choudhary , Chris Varghese , Leo Y. Li-Han , Frank G. Lee , Ellen L. Larson , Elizabeth B. Habermann , Cornelius A. Thiels , Hojjat Salehinejad This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 22:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.LGq-bio.QM
keywords postoperative pancreatic fistuladeep learningcomputed tomographypancreatic segmentationrisk prediction3D CNNpreoperative imaging
0
0 comments X

The pith

An automatic deep learning pipeline estimates postoperative pancreatic fistula risk from preoperative CT scans.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops an end-to-end deep learning system that first segments the pancreas from preoperative CT scans and then classifies the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula. This matters because POPF is a major complication that increases morbidity, hospital stay, and costs after pancreatic resection. By relying only on images taken before surgery, the method seeks to stratify risk in advance and support better operative decisions. Multiple 3D network designs were trained and tested on volumes that had been automatically segmented and linked to actual surgical outcomes. The resulting models are presented both as a potential clinical aid and as a benchmark for similar pancreas-focused CT tasks.

Core claim

We present an automatic, end-to-end deep learning pipeline—from pancreatic segmentation to classification—for preoperative POPF risk estimation and stratification using preoperative CT scans. Evaluation across multiple 3D architectures demonstrated promising predictive performance. This approach offers a clinically valuable tool and a methodological benchmark for pancreas-specific CT classification, supporting improved preoperative decision-making in pancreatic surgery.

What carries the argument

The end-to-end pipeline that performs automatic pancreatic segmentation on preoperative CT volumes followed by risk classification using 3D CNN architectures such as a custom CNN3D, R(2+1)D ResNet-18, and ResNet-MC3-18.

If this is right

  • Supports improved preoperative decision-making in pancreatic surgery.
  • Provides a methodological benchmark for pancreas-specific CT classification tasks.
  • Offers a clinically valuable tool for POPF risk stratification.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The pipeline could be embedded in existing radiology software to generate risk scores during routine preoperative review.
  • Performance on scans from varied scanner vendors would need separate confirmation before broad clinical use.
  • If reliable, the approach might help surgeons weigh resection against non-operative options for borderline-risk patients.

Load-bearing premise

The dataset of auto-segmented pancreas volumes paired with surgical outcomes is accurate enough and representative enough for training models that will generalize to new patients and scanners.

What would settle it

An independent test set from a different center in which the model's high-risk predictions do not correspond to measurably higher rates of actual postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31539 by Ashok Choudhary, Chris Varghese, Cornelius A. Thiels, Elizabeth B. Habermann, Ellen L. Larson, Frank G. Lee, Hojjat Salehinejad, Leo Y. Li-Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: End-to-end POPF prediction from preoperative CT. We first apply Hounsfield-unit (HU) windowing to standardize intensities, then use a pancreas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Raw preoperative CT axial slices illustrating variability in field-of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Axial slices after preprocessing. Intensities are windowed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ROC curves for POPF prediction on balanced splits comparing MS vs. TS pancreas masks across late arterial and portal venous cohorts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ROC curves for POPF prediction using natural-prevalence splits with MS vs. TS pancreas ROIs across late arterial and portal venous cohorts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a serious complication after pancreatic resection, increasing morbidity, hospital stay, and healthcare costs. We present an automatic, end-to-end deep learning pipeline-from pancreatic segmentation to classification-for preoperative POPF risk estimation and stratification using preoperative CT scans. A data set with auto-segmented pancreas volumes and surgical outcomes was used to evaluate multiple architectures, including a custom lightweight 3D CNN baseline (CNN3D), R(2+1)D ResNet-18, and ResNet-MC3-18 models. Evaluation across multiple 3D architectures demonstrated promising predictive performance. This approach offers a clinically valuable tool and a methodological benchmark for pancreas-specific CT classification, supporting improved preoperative decision-making in pancreatic surgery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an automatic end-to-end deep learning pipeline for preoperative prediction of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) using CT scans. It performs pancreatic segmentation followed by classification with multiple 3D architectures (custom CNN3D baseline, R(2+1)D ResNet-18, ResNet-MC3-18) on a dataset of auto-segmented pancreas volumes paired with surgical outcomes, claiming promising predictive performance that offers a clinically valuable tool and methodological benchmark for pancreas-specific CT classification.

Significance. If the reported performance holds under proper validation, the work could support improved preoperative decision-making in pancreatic surgery by enabling risk stratification from routine CT scans, potentially reducing morbidity and costs. The end-to-end framing and multi-architecture evaluation provide a useful benchmark if the pipeline is shown to be robust to segmentation errors and scanner variability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and evaluation description: the claim of 'promising predictive performance' is made without any reported metrics (accuracy, AUC, sensitivity/specificity), confidence intervals, cross-validation scheme, dataset size, class imbalance handling, or baseline comparisons. This prevents evaluation of the central claim that the pipeline delivers clinically useful risk stratification.
  2. [Methods] Methods and dataset description: no segmentation validation metrics (Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, or inter-rater agreement) are provided for the auto-segmented pancreas volumes. If segmentation error correlates with anatomy or scanner type, the downstream classifier may learn spurious patterns rather than true POPF risk, undermining the end-to-end pipeline claim.
  3. [Results] Results: the manuscript supplies no details on single- vs. multi-center data, scanner variability, or external validation, all of which are load-bearing for generalizability claims in a preoperative CT-based prediction task.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the exact definition of the 'data set with auto-segmented pancreas volumes' (e.g., source of segmentations, number of cases, inclusion criteria) to allow reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and evaluation description: the claim of 'promising predictive performance' is made without any reported metrics (accuracy, AUC, sensitivity/specificity), confidence intervals, cross-validation scheme, dataset size, class imbalance handling, or baseline comparisons. This prevents evaluation of the central claim that the pipeline delivers clinically useful risk stratification.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative support for the performance claim. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to report key metrics (AUC, accuracy, sensitivity/specificity with confidence intervals), dataset size, cross-validation scheme, class-imbalance handling, and baseline comparisons drawn from the experiments already conducted. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods and dataset description: no segmentation validation metrics (Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, or inter-rater agreement) are provided for the auto-segmented pancreas volumes. If segmentation error correlates with anatomy or scanner type, the downstream classifier may learn spurious patterns rather than true POPF risk, undermining the end-to-end pipeline claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that segmentation quality metrics were omitted. In the revision we will add a dedicated paragraph in Methods reporting Dice coefficients, Hausdorff distances, and any available inter-rater agreement for the auto-segmentation step, together with a brief discussion of how segmentation error could affect downstream classification. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results: the manuscript supplies no details on single- vs. multi-center data, scanner variability, or external validation, all of which are load-bearing for generalizability claims in a preoperative CT-based prediction task.

    Authors: The dataset is single-center; we will explicitly state this in Methods and Results and add a limitations paragraph discussing scanner variability and the absence of external validation. We cannot conduct new external-validation experiments because no additional multi-center data are available to the authors at present. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • External validation on independent multi-center datasets cannot be performed with the data currently accessible to the authors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical ML pipeline evaluated on held-out data

full rationale

The paper presents a standard supervised deep learning pipeline that segments pancreas volumes from preoperative CT and trains classifiers (CNN3D, R(2+1)D ResNet-18, ResNet-MC3-18) to predict POPF risk from surgical outcomes. Performance is measured against held-out data rather than defined by construction. No equations, parameter-fitting steps presented as predictions, derivation chains, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described manuscript. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks (held-out patient outcomes) and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described. The work rests on the unstated assumption that standard supervised learning on auto-segmented CT volumes will yield clinically useful risk estimates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5690 in / 1159 out tokens · 22838 ms · 2026-06-28T22:45:50.701843+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The 2016 update of the international study group (isgps) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after,

    C. Bassi, G. Marchegiani, C. Dervenis, M. Sarr, M. A. Hilal, M. Adham, P. Allen, R. Andersson, H. J. Asbun, M. G. Besselinket al., “The 2016 update of the international study group (isgps) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after,”surgery, vol. 161, no. 3, pp. 584–591, 2017

    2016

  2. [2]

    Nationwide outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy in patients at very high risk (isgps-d) for postoperative pancreatic fistula,

    R. T. Theijse, T. F. Stoop, T. E. Hendriks, J. A. Suurmeijer, F. J. Smits, B. A. Bonsing, D. J. Lips, E. Manusama, E. Van Der Harst, G. A. Patijn et al., “Nationwide outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy in patients at very high risk (isgps-d) for postoperative pancreatic fistula,”Annals of surgery, vol. 281, no. 2, pp. 322–328, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Postopera- tive pancreatic fistula: an international study group (isgpf) definition,

    C. Bassi, C. Dervenis, G. Butturini, A. Fingerhut, C. Yeo, J. Izbicki, J. Neoptolemos, M. Sarr, W. Traverso, M. Buchleret al., “Postopera- tive pancreatic fistula: an international study group (isgpf) definition,” surgery, vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 8–13, 2005

    2005

  4. [4]

    Postoperative pancreatic fistula: a review of traditional and emerging concepts,

    C. B. Nahm, S. J. Connor, J. S. Samra, and A. Mittal, “Postoperative pancreatic fistula: a review of traditional and emerging concepts,” Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, pp. 105–118, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Incidence and impact of postoperative pancreatic fis- tula after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy,

    N. van der Heijde, S. Lof, O. R. Busch, I. de Hingh, R. H. de Kleine, I. Q. Molenaar, T. H. Mungroop, M. W. Stommel, M. G. Besselink, C. van Eijcket al., “Incidence and impact of postoperative pancreatic fis- tula after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy,”Surgery, vol. 171, no. 6, pp. 1658–1664, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy,

    S. Gaujoux, A. Cortes, A. Couvelard, S. Noullet, L. Clavel, V . Rebours, P. L´evy, A. Sauvanet, P. Ruszniewski, and J. Belghiti, “Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy,”Surgery, vol. 148, no. 1, pp. 15–23, 2010

    2010

  7. [7]

    Radiomics preoperative-fistula risk score (rad-frs) for pancreatoduodenectomy: development and external validation,

    E. W. Ingwersen, J. I. Bereska, A. Balduzzi, B. V . Janssen, M. G. Besselink, G. Kazemier, G. Marchegiani, G. Malleo, H. A. Marquering, C. Y . Nioet al., “Radiomics preoperative-fistula risk score (rad-frs) for pancreatoduodenectomy: development and external validation,”BJS open, vol. 7, no. 5, p. zrad100, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Deep learning- based prediction of post-pancreaticoduodenectomy pancreatic fistula,

    W. Lee, H. J. Park, H.-J. Lee, K. B. Song, D. W. Hwang, J. H. Lee, K. Lim, Y . Ko, H. J. Kim, K. W. Kimet al., “Deep learning- based prediction of post-pancreaticoduodenectomy pancreatic fistula,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 5089, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Radiomics for the prediction of a postoperative pan- creatic fistula following a pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and radiomic score quality assessment,

    E. W. Ingwersen, P. M. Rijssenbeek, H. A. Marquering, G. Kazemier, and F. Daams, “Radiomics for the prediction of a postoperative pan- creatic fistula following a pancreatoduodenectomy: A systematic review and radiomic score quality assessment,”Pancreatology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 306–313, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Prediction of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula using radiomic features and preoperative data,

    N. Bhasker, F. R. Kolbinger, N. Skorobohach, A. Zwanenburg, S. L ¨ock, J. Weitz, R.-T. Hoffmann, M. Distler, S. Speidel, S. Legeret al., “Prediction of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula using radiomic features and preoperative data,”Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 7506, 2023

    2023

  11. [11]

    Postoperative pancreatic fistula: Still the achilles’ heel of pancreatic surgery,

    H. Muaddi and P. J. Karanicolas, “Postoperative pancreatic fistula: Still the achilles’ heel of pancreatic surgery,”Surgery, vol. 169, no. 6, pp. 1454–1455, 2021

    2021

  12. [12]

    A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition,

    D. Tran, H. Wang, L. Torresani, J. Ray, Y . LeCun, and M. Paluri, “A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 6450–6459

    2018

  13. [13]

    Totalsegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in ct images,

    J. Wasserthal, H.-C. Breit, M. T. Meyer, M. Pradella, D. Hinck, A. W. Sauter, T. Heye, D. T. Boll, J. Cyriac, S. Yanget al., “Totalsegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in ct images,”Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 5, p. e230024, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    MONAI: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare

    M. J. Cardoso, W. Li, R. Brown, N. Ma, E. Kerfoot, Y . Wang, B. Murrey, A. Myronenko, C. Zhao, D. Yanget al., “Monai: An open-source frame- work for deep learning in healthcare,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02701, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation,

    F. Isensee, P. F. Jaeger, S. A. Kohl, J. Petersen, and K. H. Maier-Hein, “nnu-net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation,”Nature methods, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 203–211, 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    Pancreas segmentation using ai developed on the largest ct dataset with multi-institutional validation and implications for early cancer detection,

    S. Mukherjee, A. Antony, N. G. Patnam, K. H. Trivedi, A. Karbhari, M. Nagaraj, M. Murlidhar, and A. H. Goenka, “Pancreas segmentation using ai developed on the largest ct dataset with multi-institutional validation and implications for early cancer detection,”Scientific reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 17096, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antigaet al., “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019