ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Towards reliable prediction of intraoperative hypotension: a cross-center evaluation of deep learning-based and MAP-derived methods.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging algorithmic promise and clinical realism in intraoperative hypotension prediction.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intraoperative hypotension (IOH) is associated with an increased risk of heart and kidney complications. Although AI tools aim to predict IOH, their real-world reliability is often overstated due to biased data selection. This study introduces a framework to enhance reliability by: (1) including borderline blood pressure cases (65-75 mmHg, the "Gray Zone"), (2) comparing AI model to simple blood pressure threshold, and (3) validating across diverse surgical cohorts, centers and demographics. Using datasets from Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden) and VitalDB (Korea), we found AI model performs better than MAP threshold method in more ambiguous cases. In contrast, when hypotensive and non-hypotensive cases had clearly separated MAP values, both methods performed similarly well. Cross-validation revealed asymmetric generalizability: models trained on datasets containing more borderline (Gray Zone) cases generalized better to datasets with clearer class separation, whereas the reverse struggled. To ensure fair model comparison and reduce dataset-specific bias, we standardized the MAP difference between positive (hypotension) and negative (non-hypotension) samples at the time of prediction. This virtually eliminated the class separation and demonstrated that inflated performance in some datasets can be attributed to selection bias rather than true model generalizability. Age also influenced generalization: Cross-age validation revealed models trained on older patients generalized better to younger cohorts, whereas differences in ASA classification had minimal effect. These findings highlight the need for realistic validation to bridge the gap between AI research and clinical practice.
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.