ArticleDigital health
Physical activity trends as predictors of postoperative complications in oncology patients: A machine learning approach.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Therapeutic potential and mechanisms of rehabilitation interventions in preventing cancer metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early detection of postsurgical complications is critical for improving surgical outcomes, yet current monitoring methods are invasive, time-consuming, and may delay intervention. Advances in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) enable using real-time data, such as accelerometer-derived physical activity, as potential early warning signs. This exploratory study evaluated whether activity trends can predict postsurgical complications in oncology patients using ML models. Methods: Usual care data from a surgical oncology ward (October 2020-December 2024) were analyzed. Three classifiers were evaluated-Random Forest (RF), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), and Logistic Regression (LR)-within a nested cross-validation framework. Two modeling strategies were compared: (1) training/testing without undersampling and (2) training with undersampling at varying factors to balance complication versus noncomplication days. Models were assessed for next-day complication prediction using area under the ROC curve (AUC), precision, recall, and F1-score with bootstrap confidence intervals. Results: Data were collected from 965 patients, of whom 189 were included. The best performance for RF was observed at an undersampling factor of 1 (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.67; recall = 0.63, 95% CI 0.27-0.91; precision = 0.05, 95% CI 0.03-0.07). LR achieved its highest AUC without undersampling (0.68, 95% CI 0.67-0.69), while XGB performed consistently lower (AUC ≈ 0.63-0.64). Conclusions: This exploratory study showed that postoperative activity trends alone were insufficient to predict complications after major oncological surgery. Combining accelerometer, physiological, and laboratory data may improve predictive accuracy and overall clinical value in perioperative care.
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.