ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2026
Application of machine learning for the prediction of post-operative nausea and vomiting in adult surgical patients - A systematic review.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 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.
- Mirror, mirror on the wall, can artificial intelligence predict it all?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
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
Background and Aims: The clinical prediction of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is mainly based on scoring systems developed more than 2 decades ago. We systematically reviewed machine learning studies of PONV risk prediction. Methods: We searched databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for studies published till 14 September 2025. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and its standard error, we compared predictive performance with Apfel's original 4-parameter pre-operative scoring system [area under curve (AUC) 0.68]. We assessed the quality of reporting of the studies using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis + Artificial Intelligence (TRIPOD+AI) framework. Results: Of 21 eligible studies, 16 were conducted in Asian countries. Three studies of mixed surgical populations reported an estimated AUC (0.714-0.814) numerically exceeding Apfel's (AUC 0.68). These models included not only pre-operative but also intra-operative variables (e.g., anaesthetic drugs) for model development. None of the studies provided their models sufficient for implementation (e.g., computer code with estimated parameters or a web page for calculations). Furthermore, none specified how the standard errors were calculated, for assessment of their reliability compared with Apfel's logistic regression model. Secondary analyses found that models for specific surgical populations reported larger observed AUCs than those for mixed populations. Conclusion: Although some ML algorithms reported higher discriminatory power than Apfel's PONV risk prediction, none satisfied the TRIPOD+AI reporting criteria sufficient for clinical replacement by departments. Future research should prioritise open science principles to ensure that scientific advances can be tested for generalisability and efficacy in reducing PONV. The improved predictive performance may be realised for clinical decision-making soon before the end of surgery rather than prophylaxis chosen pre-operatively.
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.