ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Letter to the editor: interpretable machine learning model predicts 1‑year inguinal hernia risk after robot‑assisted radical prostatectomy.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We read with interest the recent article by Yu et al., "Interpretable machine learning model predicts 1-year inguinal hernia risk after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy" (DOI: 10.1007/s11701-025-02723-5) , which represents an important step in applying explainable machine learning to postoperative complication prediction. The authors should be commended for highlighting inguinal hernia as an underrecognized sequela of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and for pioneering the use of SHAP-based interpretation in this context. Their findings offer valuable groundwork for risk stratification and personalized counseling. While the study acknowledges several limitations, we wish to highlight additional concerns that warrant consideration. First, the reliance on a single, ethnically homogeneous cohort may limit generalizability across diverse populations. Second, omission of intraoperative surgical technique variables-such as Retzius-sparing approaches, peritoneal closure, or extraperitoneal access-restricts the model's ability to account for modifiable surgical factors. Third, the use of symptom-driven ultrasonography risks underdetection of subclinical hernias, introducing potential bias. Fourth, the one-year follow-up period may underestimate true incidence, as many cases manifest within 2-3 years postoperatively. Finally, the feature set was confined to five predictors, overlooking biological and functional variables such as collagen metabolism, frailty indices, and continence recovery, which are known to influence hernia development.We suggest that future research incorporate multicenter, ethnically diverse cohorts, longer follow-up, standardized imaging, and expanded biological and surgical predictors. These steps will enhance predictive accuracy, clinical utility, and generalizability. Our critique aims to complement the authors' contribution and foster refinement of machine learning models for postoperative complication risk prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40971001What 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.