ArticleCurrent opinion in anaesthesiology2026
Machine learning for hemodynamic instability prediction and hemorrhage management in trauma and perioperative care.
Article in Current opinion in anaesthesiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewHemodynamic instability and uncontrolled hemorrhage remain leading causes of preventable morbidity and mortality in trauma and perioperative critical care. This review summarizes recent advances in machine learning-based approaches for early detection before overt decompensation and for supporting time-critical hemorrhage management in trauma patients. RECENT
findingsRecent studies have explored machine learning across multiple stages of trauma care, including early warning systems, outcome and mortality prediction, prediction of massive transfusion needs, risk stratification, and bleeding monitoring. Outcome prediction - particularly mortality and complications such as sepsis - remains one of the most extensively studied domains. More recent work has increasingly favored neural network-based architectures, including deep and hybrid models, reflecting their capacity to model complex, high-dimensional, and temporal physiologic data, while ensemble methods such as extreme gradient boosting remain widely used due to their robustness to missing data and class imbalance. Although many models outperform traditional clinical scores in retrospective analyses, performance frequently declines during external validation, and few systems have demonstrated clinical impact in prospective or workflow-integrated settings. SUMMARY: Machine learning-based predictive analytics show promise for anticipating hemodynamic instability and guiding hemorrhage management before conventional vital-sign thresholds are crossed. However, clinical adoption remains constrained by data quality, generalizability, interpretability, and integration into time-critical workflows. Future progress will depend on incremental performance gains and physiology-informed model design, rigorous external validation, and careful positioning of machine learning tools as decision-support systems that augment - rather than replace - clinician judgment.
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.