ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Assessing perioperative risks in a mixed elderly surgical population using machine learning: A multi-objective symbolic regression approach to cardiorespiratory fitness derived from cardiopulmonary exercise testing.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Explainable and interpretable models for predicting early-onset hypertension in the Tlalpan 2020 cohort.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate preoperative risk assessment is of great value to both patients and clinical teams. Several risk scores have been developed but are often not calibrated to the local institution, limited in terms of data input into the underlying models, and/or lack individual precision. Machine Learning (ML) models have the potential to address limitations in existing scoring systems. A database of 1190 elderly patients who underwent major elective surgery was analyzed retrospectively. Preoperative cardiorespiratory fitness data from cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), demographic and clinical data were extracted and integrated into advanced machine learning (ML) algorithms. Multi-Objective-Symbolic-Regression (MOSR), a novel algorithm utilizing Genetic Programming to generate mathematical formulae for learning tasks, was employed to predict patient morbidity at Postoperative Day 3, as defined by the PostOperative Morbidity Survey (POMS). Shapley-Additive-exPlanations (SHAP) was subsequently used to analyze feature contributions. Model performance was benchmarked against existing risk prediction scores, namely the Portsmouth-Physiological-and-Operative-Severity-Score-for-the-Enumeration-of-Mortality-and-Morbidity (PPOSSUM) and the Duke-Activity-Status-Index, as well as linear regression using CPET features. A model was also developed for the same task using data directly extracted from the CPET time-series. The incorporation of cardiorespiratory fitness data enhanced the performance of all models for predicting postoperative morbidity by 20% compared to sole reliance on clinical data. Cardiorespiratory fitness features demonstrated greater importance than clinical features in the SHAP analysis. Models utilizing data taken directly from the CPET time-series demonstrated a 12% improvement over the cardiorespiratory fitness models. MOSR model surpassed all other models in every experiment, demonstrating excellent robustness and generalization capabilities. Integrating cardiorespiratory fitness data with ML models enables improved preoperative prediction of postoperative morbidity in elective surgical patients. The MOSR model stands out for its capacity to pinpoint essential features and build models that are both simple and accurate, showing excellent generalizability.
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.