ReviewBMC anesthesiology2024
The anesthesiologist's guide to critically assessing machine learning research: a narrative review.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical readiness and trust in artificial intelligence-assisted anaesthesia: A cross-sectional survey study among anaesthesia professionals in India.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- When evidence meets artificial intelligence.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- An interpretable machine learning model for predicting emergence agitation in children: a multicenter development and validation study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Machine learning models for predicting postoperative delirium after noncardiac surgery: A comparative study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Comments on "Forecasting anesthetic depth using an auto regressive transformer in propofol infusion during the induction phase" by Chi et al.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Emerging Diagnostic Approaches for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Advances in Imaging, Biomarkers, and Clinical Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Smart CAR-T Nanosymbionts: archetypes and proto-models.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.