Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695968›Full record

ReviewBMC anesthesiology2024

The anesthesiologist's guide to critically assessing machine learning research: a narrative review.

Felipe Ocampo Osorio, Sergio Alzate-Ricaurte, Tomas Eduardo Mejia Vallecilla, Gustavo Adolfo Cruz-Suarez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. When evidence meets artificial intelligence.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

4 authors.

Felipe Ocampo OsorioUnidad de Inteligencia Artificial, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cra 98 Num.18-49, Cali, 760032, Valle del Cauca, Colombia.
Sergio Alzate-RicaurteUnidad de Inteligencia Artificial, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cra 98 Num.18-49, Cali, 760032, Valle del Cauca, Colombia.
Tomas Eduardo Mejia VallecillaUnidad de Inteligencia Artificial, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cra 98 Num.18-49, Cali, 760032, Valle del Cauca, Colombia.
Gustavo Adolfo Cruz-SuarezUnidad de Inteligencia Artificial, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cra 98 Num.18-49, Cali, 760032, Valle del Cauca, Colombia. gustavo.cruz@fvl.org.co.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Machine Learning (ML), has developed systems capable of performing tasks that require human intelligence. In anesthesiology and other medical fields, AI applications can improve the precision and efficiency of daily clinical practice, and can also facilitate a personalized approach to patient care, which can lead to improved outcomes and quality of care. ML has been successfully applied in various settings of daily anesthesiology practice, such as predicting acute kidney injury, optimizing anesthetic doses, and managing postoperative nausea and vomiting. The critical evaluation of ML models in healthcare is crucial to assess their validity, safety, and clinical applicability. Evaluation metrics allow an objective statistical assessment of model performance. Tools such as Shapley Values (SHAP) help interpret how individual variables contribute to model predictions. Transparency in reporting is key in maintaining trust in these technologies and to ensure their use follows ethical principles, aiming to reduce safety concerns while also benefiting patients. Understanding evaluation metrics is essential, as they provide detailed information on model performance and their ability to discriminate between individual class rates. This article offers a comprehensive framework in assessing the validity, applicability, and limitations of models, guiding responsible and effective integration of ML technologies into clinical practice. A balance between innovation, patient safety and ethical considerations must be pursued.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologistsMachine LearningAnesthesiologyHumansAnesthesiologyArtificial intelligenceClinical decision support systemMachine learningPatient-specific modeling

Identifiers

PMID39695968
PMCPMC11654216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.