ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Explainable Machine Learning for Prediction of Early Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After General Anesthesia.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Perioperative Risk Prediction in Anesthesiology: A Bibliometric and Knowledge-Mapping Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Explainable artificial intelligence for postoperative analgesia risk stratification and clinical decision support in abdominal surgery.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence in anesthesiology prediction models: bridging the gap from black-box algorithms to clinical decision support.Frontiers in medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains one of the most common adverse effects associated with anesthesia care. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of applying machine learning models trained exclusively on routinely available non-invasive clinical indicators to predict early PONV risk. Explainable artificial intelligence techniques were also employed to identify the most influential predictors of early PONV. Patients and Methods: A retrospective dataset from Cathay General Hospital, including 927 patient cases and 16 non-invasive clinical indicators, was used to investigate early PONV risk prediction. This study evaluated the predictive performance of several traditional machine learning models, deep learning architectures, and ensemble learning methods to compare their classification capabilities. Results: Overall, the models demonstrated moderate discriminative performance. The random forest model achieved an accuracy of 83.5% with balanced precision (80.81%) and recall (83.5%), while the logistic regression model attained an AUC of 0.6905. Analysis of positive SHAP values identified the top 7 most influential predictors of early PONV. These included pharmacologic interventions (eg, neostigmine), pre-existing comorbidities (eg, history of nausea and vomiting, history of cardiovascular disease), demographic characteristics (eg, gender), postoperative pain, and anesthetic and surgical factors (eg, type of surgery and duration of anesthesia). Moreover, SHAP analysis revealed that the use of dexamethasone was negatively associated with the predicted risk in the model, suggesting its potential protective role in the prevention of early PONV. Conclusion: By generating explainable outputs, this study bridges the gap between algorithmic prediction and clinical decision-making, allowing anesthesiologists to better recognize underlying risk factors and make informed, evidence-based decisions in perioperative management.
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.