SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Machine learning application in the prediction of postoperative delirium among elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis systematically evaluates machine learning (ML) applications for predicting postoperative delirium (POD) among elderly patients. This study compares predictive performance across models, assesses generalizability and evaluates bias risk. The goal is to provide clinicians with evidence-based guidance for selecting and implementing relevant prediction tools.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines we searched PubMed Web of Science and the CochraneLibrary for studies published between July 17 2020, and July 17, 2025. We included studies that developed ML models to predict POD in elderly surgical patients. Model performance metrics were extracted. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses and risk of bias assessments were performed using PROBAST.
resultsA total of 14 studies comprising 49 prediction models were included, collectively enrolling 874,485 patients with a pooled POD incidence of 9.86%. The pooled Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) for ML models predicting POD was 0.756 (95% CI: 0.740-0.772), indicating moderate predictive performance. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I² = 95.7%). Among individual algorithms, Logistic Regression (LR) (AUC = 0.794), XGBoost (AUC = 0.773), and LightGBM (AUC = 0.772) showed superior discriminative performance, whereas Decision Trees (DT) performed poorly (AUC = 0.641). In validation analyses, models showed better performance in internal validation (AUC = 0.760) compared with external validation (AUC = 0.745). In external validation, Support Vector Machines (SVM) achieved excellent performance (AUC = 0.808), while XGBoost maintained stable performance (AUC = 0.755). A significant negative correlation was observed between sample size and model performance in external validation (ρ = -0.613, p = 0.015).
conclusionML models demonstrate moderate predictive performance for POD among elderly patients. LR and XGBoost emerged as the top-performing algorithms, whereas DT exhibited relatively poor discriminative ability. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across studies. Notably, external validation revealed a significant negative correlation between sample size and model performance. Future research should enhance methodological quality, conduct rigorous external validation to confirm model generalizability, and prioritize clinical interpretability to promote clinical use.
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.