ArticleJournal of anesthesia and translational medicine2026
A web-based two-stage prediction model for postoperative pulmonary complications using preoperative and intraoperative data.
Article in Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most existing models for predicting postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) rely solely on preoperative variables and lack integration of intraoperative data or clinical tools for application. Methods: This study developed and externally validated logistic regression and machine learning (ML) models for predicting PPCs in non-cardiothoracic surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia. A cohort of 997 patients was randomly divided into training and test sets in a 7:3 ratio. The stepwise regression method was adopted to conduct feature screening on the preoperative dataset and the combined preoperative and intraoperative dataset, and a variety of ML algorithm models were developed. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), brier score, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-score. External validation was performed on an independent cohort of 286 patients from a different institution. The features of the optimized model were interpreted by introducing SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method. Results: The AUROC value of the logistic regression model using only preoperative variables in the test set was 0.828. After including intraoperative variables, the CatBoost model demonstrated superior performance, with an AUROC value of 0.927. In the preoperative model, C-reactive protein (CRP), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, age, and smoking status were the most significant predictors. However, operative duration, CRP, age, and intraoperative blood loss were the dominant predictors of postoperative outcomes. External validation confirmed general applicability, with preoperative logistic regression and the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia Tool (ARISCAT) yielding AUROC values of 0.827 and 0.796, respectively. The postoperative CatBoost model achieved an AUROC of 0.865, AUPRC of 0.809, sensitivity of 0.787, specificity of 0.921, and the lowest Brier score (0.132). Conclusions: The preoperative model enabled early risk stratification, while the postoperative model provided improved accuracy. A publicly accessible web-based calculator was developed to support clinical implementation and facilitate prospective validation.
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.