ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparing manual vs. automated machine learning and deep learning models for predicting one-year mortality in elderly hip fracture patients.
Article in Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hip fractures are associated with significant mortality, especially among elderly patients. Accurate prediction of mortality risk is crucial for optimising perioperative care and resource allocation. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) offer promising methods to enhance clinical risk prediction models; however, their clinical implementation often remains limited due to the complexity of these techniques. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 2,604 elderly patients (≥65 years) undergoing urgent hip fracture surgery at Sheba Medical Center, Israel, between January 2017 and November 2023. Multiple ML and DL algorithms were evaluated for predicting one-year all-cause mortality using a comprehensive set of clinical, demographic, perioperative, and laboratory variables. Models were rigorously developed and validated through stratified 5-fold cross-validation, addressing class imbalance with the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE). Additionally, an automated ML pipeline, generated using a large language model (LLM) coupled with the Tree-based Pipeline Optimisation Tool (TPOT), was benchmarked against manually optimised models. Model performances were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, false-positive rate, and true-negative rate, supplemented by permutation importance and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) for interpretability. Results: Among all models evaluated, the manually optimised Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) algorithm demonstrated superior predictive performance (AUC = 0.846, accuracy = 0.791, F1-score = 0.667, precision = 0.773, NPV = 0.798). Important predictors identified included baseline serum albumin and urea levels, patient age, intraoperative hypothermia, and the number of chronic diseases. The automated ML model, generated via LLM and TPOT frameworks, showed comparable performance to the XGB model (AUC = 0.844), with a higher recall but slightly lower precision. Discussion: ML-based models, particularly the XGB algorithm, significantly enhance predictive accuracy for one-year mortality among elderly hip fracture patients. Crucially, an automated ML framework leveraging large language models provides a practical, clinically accessible alternative, effectively democratising advanced predictive analytics in healthcare settings.
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.