ArticleBJA open2024
Implementation and prospective performance evaluation of an intraoperative duration prediction model using high throughput real-time data.
Article in BJA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate real-time prediction of intraoperative duration can contribute to improved perioperative outcomes. We implemented a data pipeline for extraction of real-time data from nascent anaesthesia records and silently deployed a predictive machine learning (ML) algorithm. Methods: Clinical variables were retrieved from the electronic health record via a third-party clinical decision support platform and contemporaneously ingested into a previously developed ML model. The model was trained using 3 months data, and performance was subsequently evaluated over 10 months using continuous ranked probability score. Results: The ML model made 6 173 435 predictions on 62 142 procedures. Mean continuous ranked probability score for the ML model was 27.19 (standard error 0.016) min compared with 51.66 (standard error 0.029) min for the bias-corrected scheduled duration. Linear regression did not demonstrate performance drift over the testing period. Conclusions: We implemented and silently deployed a real-time ML algorithm for predicting surgery duration. Prospective evaluation showed that model performance was preserved over a 10-month testing period.
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.