ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Gated recurrent unit with decay has real-time capability for postoperative ileus surveillance and offers cross-hospital transferability.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIleus, a postoperative complication after colorectal surgery, increases morbidity, costs, and hospital stays. Assessing risk of ileus is crucial, especially with the trend towards early discharge. Prior studies assessed risk of ileus with regression models, the role of deep learning remains unexplored.
methodsWe evaluated the Gated Recurrent Unit with Decay (GRU-D) for real-time ileus risk assessment in 7349 colorectal surgeries across three Mayo Clinic sites with two Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems. The results were compared with atemporal models on a panel of benchmark metrics.
resultsHere we show that despite extreme data sparsity (e.g., 72.2% of labs, 26.9% of vitals lack measurements within 24 h post-surgery), GRU-D demonstrates improved performance by integrating new measurements and exhibits robust transferability. In brute-force transfer, AUROC decreases by no more than 5%, while multi-source instance transfer yields up to a 2.6% improvement in AUROC and an 86% narrower confidence interval. Although atemporal models perform better at certain pre-surgical time points, their performance fluctuates considerably and generally falls short of GRU-D in post-surgical hours.
conclusionsGRU-D's dynamic risk assessment capability is crucial in scenarios where clinical follow-up is essential, warranting further research on built-in explainability for clinical integration.
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.