Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26031220›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2015

Teaching a Machine to Feel Postoperative Pain: Combining High-Dimensional Clinical Data with Machine Learning Algorithms to Forecast Acute Postoperative Pain.

Patrick J Tighe, Christopher A Harle, Robert W Hurley, Haldun Aytug, Andre P Boezaart, Roger B Fillingim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Moving towards the use of artificial intelligence in pain management.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Patrick J TigheDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Christopher A HarleDepartment of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Robert W HurleyDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Haldun AytugDepartment of Information Systems and Operations Management, Warrington College of Business Administration, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Andre P BoezaartDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Roger B FillingimDepartment of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science, University of Florida College of Dentistry, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Funding

Using social networks to map and evaluate team science across CTSA hubsUL1TR001427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MITCHELL, DUANE A. · 2015 to 2024
$37.2M
University of Florida Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC)P30AG028740 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI CHRISTIAAN LEEUWENBURGH · 2007 to 2026
$22.8M
UF Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000064 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI NELSON, DAVID R · 2012 to 2014
$12.2M
UF Clinical and Translational Science AwardKL2TR000065 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI NELSON, DAVID R · 2012 to 2014
$1.6M
Use of Machine Learning Classifiers to Forecast Severe Acute Postoperative Pain FK23GM102697 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI TIGHE, PATRICK J · 2012 to 2015
$573k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000065NCATS NIH HHS KL2TR000065NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000064NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000064NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001427NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028740NIGMS NIH HHS K23 GM102697NIGMS NIH HHS K23GM102697
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven their ability to process highly dimensional datasets with hundreds of variables, machine learning algorithms may offer one solution to the vexing challenge of predicting postoperative pain.

methodsHere, we report on the application of machine learning algorithms to predict postoperative pain outcomes in a retrospective cohort of 8,071 surgical patients using 796 clinical variables. Five algorithms were compared in terms of their ability to forecast moderate to severe postoperative pain: Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), gradient-boosted decision tree, support vector machine, neural network, and k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), with logistic regression included for baseline comparison.

resultsIn forecasting moderate to severe postoperative pain for postoperative day (POD) 1, the LASSO algorithm, using all 796 variables, had the highest accuracy with an area under the receiver-operating curve (ROC) of 0.704. Next, the gradient-boosted decision tree had an ROC of 0.665 and the k-NN algorithm had an ROC of 0.643. For POD 3, the LASSO algorithm, using all variables, again had the highest accuracy, with an ROC of 0.727. Logistic regression had a lower ROC of 0.5 for predicting pain outcomes on POD 1 and 3.

conclusionsMachine learning algorithms, when combined with complex and heterogeneous data from electronic medical record systems, can forecast acute postoperative pain outcomes with accuracies similar to methods that rely only on variables specifically collected for pain outcome prediction.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningDecision TreesHumansLogistic ModelsNeural Networks, ComputerPostoperative PainRetrospective StudiesROC CurveAlgorithmMachine LearningPain PredictionPostoperative Pain

Identifiers

PMID26031220
PMCPMC4504764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.