ArticleScientific reports2026
Investigating the utilization of LIME-enhanced AI and generated data for evaluating the risks associated with radial artery puncture procedures.
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
Radial artery puncture, a routine arterial cannulation procedure for perioperative and critical care settings, is limited by high first-attempt failure and hematoma risk under experience-based practice. We aim to develop artificial intelligence (AI) - powered precise puncture guidance to reduce procedure-related complications and improve patient experience. In this study, Synthetic Data Vault (SDV) algorithm is used to generate patient data as training set data according to the real data provided by Biostudies. Ten machine learning models were built via Python, and performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). In the real-world test cohort, there were 185 positive cases of the first-attempt radial artery puncture success, corresponding to a positive proportion of 72.27%. For the postoperative hematoma outcome, 40 positive cases were identified, with a positive proportion of 15.63%. Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) integrated with decision tree classifier identified the top 3 predictors of puncture-related adverse events, enabling individualized risk stratification for clinical decision-making. For first-attempt puncture success prediction in the test set, all models except logistic regression, Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB) and k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) achieved accuracy > 0.750; all except KNN and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM) had precision > 0.830. LGBM (0.951) and CatBoost (0.881) yielded the highest recall, while CatBoost (0.763) and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) (0.750) had the highest AUC. For post-puncture hematoma prediction, all models except KNN had accuracy > 0.840; the top three precision values were from Multilayer Perceptron Classifier (MLPC, 0.857), Linear Support Vector Classification (LinearSVC, 0.667) and Adaptive Boosting (ADAB, 0.556). GNB achieved the highest recall (0.450), and all models except decision tree and KNN had AUC > 0.750. XGB achieved the optimal overall performance for first-attempt radial artery puncture success prediction in the tested single-center cohort, while MLPC yielded the highest precision for post-puncture hematoma prediction among the 10 evaluated algorithms.
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.