ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Optimizing surgical efficiency: predicting case duration of common general surgery procedures using machine learning.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- OpenThread as a tool for localization of devices and patients in healthcare systems.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Accurate surgery time prediction (ASTP) strategy based on artificial intelligence techniques.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery: Major Applications and Recent Advances.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Development and clinical application of an Intelligent Operating Room Scheduling System.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate prediction of surgical duration is critical to optimizing use of operating room resources. Currently, cases are scheduled using subjective estimates of length by surgeons, relying heavily on prior experience. This study aims to develop and compare various predictive models-from conventional statistics to machine learning-based algorithms-to accurately and objectively predict case duration for common elective general surgical procedures.
methodsElectronic health record data across three academic tertiary centers were used to train models to predict "case time duration," defined as the time between patient entry to and departure from the operating room. Model performance was evaluated based on predictive accuracy as well as residual analysis, and ultimately benchmarked against "scheduled duration," defined as case time estimated preoperatively by primary surgeons.
resultsPredictive models, including simple linear regression, Ridge regression, Lasso regression, Support Vector Regression, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machine, XGBoost, and Artificial Neural Network (ANN), were trained on a cohort of 16,159 patients [mean age, 56.85 ± 15.95; 47.48% male] having undergone 17,246 elective general surgery procedures. The ANN model demonstrated superior predictive accuracy (Root Mean Squared Error, 49.7 min [95% CI 47.5 to 52.0]; Mean Absolute Error, 31.8 min [95% CI 30.6 to 33.0]). Residual analysis showed that the ANN resulted in an average residual of -0.37 min [95% CI - 40.42 to 39.68, p = 0.34], while the scheduled duration produced an average residual of - 18.52 min [95% CI - 55.24 to 18.2, p < 0.01], demonstrating that the ANN provided a more accurate case time estimation by more than 18 min.
conclusionThe ANN model estimates of case time were meaningfully more accurate than provider knowledge-based estimates. By eliminating the subjective bias and dogma inherent in the traditional scheduling methods, future applications of machine learning to predict case duration may improve healthcare resource utilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40571798What 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.