Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40133849›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) readiness predictions using machine learning: a comparative study of algorithms.

Shahnam Sedigh Maroufi, Maryam Soleimani Movahed, Azar Ejmalian, Maryam Sarkhosh, Ali Behmanesh

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Shahnam Sedigh Maroufi *Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Allied Medical Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-7546-7041
Maryam Soleimani Movahed *Education Development Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-5469-8182
Azar EjmalianDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Maryam SarkhoshDepartment of Anesthesia, Faculty of Allied Medical Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Maryamsarkhosh1999@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0007-2098-4675
Ali BehmaneshEducation Development Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. aa.behmanesh@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5693-2283

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccurate and timely discharge from the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) is essential to prevent postoperative complications and optimize hospital resource utilization. Premature discharge can lead to severe issues such as respiratory or cardiovascular complications, while delays can strain hospital capacity. Machine learning algorithms offer a promising solution by leveraging large amounts of patient data to predict optimal discharge times. Unlike prior studies relying on statistical models or single-algorithm methods, this research assesses multiple ML models to predict discharge readiness, comparing them against staff evaluations and the Aldrete checklist. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 830 patients under general anesthesia from December 2023 to April 2024, collecting demographics, surgical details, and Aldrete scores. A power analysis ensured statistical robustness, targeting a 5% accuracy improvement (minimum clinically important difference, derived from Gabriel et al., 2017), with variance (SD ≈ 0.1) from pilot data, using a two-sample t-test (power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05), confirming the sample size's adequacy. Two prediction approaches were tested: discharge timing in 15-minute intervals and binary classification (within 15 min or later). Models included Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and XGBoost, assessed via accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and AUC. Predictions were benchmarked against staff and Aldrete scores, with 99.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusting for multiple comparisons.

resultshe RF algorithm showed high performance in both prediction approaches. In the first approach, RF achieved an AUC of 0.75 (99.5% CI: 0.70-0.80) and accuracy of 0.87 (99.5% CI: 0.83-0.91) per staff evaluations, and an AUC of 0.87 (99.5% CI: 0.83-0.91) and accuracy of 0.71 (99.5% CI: 0.66-0.76) per Aldrete scores. In the second approach, RF recorded an AUC of 0.85 (99.5% CI: 0.81-0.89) and accuracy of 0.86 (99.5% CI: 0.82-0.90) per staff evaluations, with ANN also showing strong results (AUC = 0.88, 99.5% CI: 0.84-0.92; accuracy = 0.78, 99.5% CI: 0.74-0.82). Due to overlapping CIs, differences between models were not statistically significant (P >.005). According to the Aldrete checklist, RF, SVM, and ANN exhibited competitive predictive capability, with AUCs ranging from 0.80 to 0.86.

conclusionThe strong performance of Random Forest (RF) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models in predicting PACU discharge timing upon admission highlights their potential as effective tools for evaluating discharge readiness, as compared to staff assessments and the Aldrete checklist. This study focused on assessing these models, showing their ability to produce consistent predictions, though differences between top models were not statistically significant due to overlapping confidence intervals. Practical application of these findings to improve patient outcomes or hospital efficiency requires further investigation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnesthesia Recovery PeriodMachine LearningPatient DischargeRecovery RoomAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedDischarge predictionLength of stayMachine learningPost-anesthesia care unitRecovery

Identifiers

PMID40133849
PMCPMC11934757

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.