ArticleScientific reports2026
Quantum machine learning for predicting anastomotic leak: a clinical study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Anastomotic leak is a life-threatening complication following colorectal surgery. This study benchmarks Quantum Neural Networks (QNNs) against hyperparameter-tuned classical models (logistic regression, multi-layer perceptrons, boosting algorithms) for anastomotic leak prediction. Using a 200-patient clinical dataset strictly bounded by a priori medical constraints, we simulated QNNs with ZZFeatureMap encoding and EfficientSU2/RealAmplitudes ansatze under realistic hardware noise. To ensure statistical reliability, performance metrics were averaged across 10 independent optimization runs. The EfficientSU2-BFGS configuration achieved the highest mean AUC of [Formula: see text], while RealAmplitudes with CMA-ES maximized Average Precision ([Formula: see text]). Crucially, at a fixed, clinically necessary sensitivity of [Formula: see text], specific QNN configurations achieved significantly higher specificity (up to [Formula: see text]) and Negative Predictive Value (up to [Formula: see text]) compared to classical models (maximum [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], respectively), effectively minimizing false positives. However, classical models maintained superior probability calibration for continuous risk stratification. We conclude that QNNs offer robust discriminative performance for clinical screening, warranting further validation on larger, independent cohorts.
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.