ArticleCureus2023
Machine Learning Algorithm to Perform the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Anesthesia Preparedeness Clinic (APC) triage score tool: an integrated electronic health record tool for improving resource allocation for preoperative care clinics.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- Perioperative Risk Stratification with AI-Powered Chatbots: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence for American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification: Agreement with Clinician Consensus and Temporal Stability Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of human-AI agreement in ASA scoring by gender and duration of clinical experience: a real-world study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Anaesthesiology: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2025Article
- Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status (PS) Classification System defines perioperative patient scores ranging from 1 to 6 (healthy to brain dead, respectively). The scoring is performed and used by physician anesthesiologists and providers to classify surgical patients based on co-morbidities and various clinical characteristics. There is potentially a variability in scoring stemming from individual biases. The biases impact the prediction of operating times, length of stay in the hospital, anesthetic management, and billing. This study's purpose was to develop an automated system to achieve reproducible scoring.
methodsA machine learning (ML) model was trained on already assigned ASA PS scores of 12,064 patients. The ML algorithm was automatically selected by Wolfram Mathematica (Wolfram Research, Champaign, IL) and tested with retrospective records not used in training. Manual scoring was performed by the anesthesiologist as part of the standard preoperative evaluation. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in R (version 4.2.2; R Development Core Team, Vienna, Austria) was calculated to assess the consistency of scoring.
resultsAn ML model was trained on the data corresponding to 12,064 patients. Logistic regression was chosen automatically, with an accuracy of 70.3±1.0% against the training dataset. The accuracy against 1,999 patients (the test dataset) was 69.6±1.0%. The ICC for the comparison between ML and the anesthesiologists' ASA PS scores was greater than 0.4 ("fair to good").
conclusionsWe have shown the feasibility of applying ML to assess the ASA PS score within an oncology patient population. Though our accuracy was not very good, we feel that, as more data are mined, a valid foundation for refinement to ML will emerge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.