ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Machine learning-based prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
Article in Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are common adverse events after abdominal surgery in older adults, but existing risk scores may have limited transportability and clinical interpretability in elderly surgical populations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 2,456 patients aged >=65 years who underwent abdominal surgery in the development/internal cohort and 542 patients in an independent external-validation cohort. Six algorithms were compared, including logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, neural network, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination, calibration, decision curve analysis, and external validation. SHAP analysis was used to support interpretability. Additional revision analyses examined pulmonary-function-test missingness, minor versus major PPCs, PPC co-occurrence patterns, temporal stability, COVID-era effects, and comparator-score performance. Results: PPCs occurred in 425 of 2,456 patients (17.3%) in the development/internal cohort and 105 of 542 patients (19.4%) in the external-validation cohort. XGBoost showed the best overall performance, with AUCs of 0.856 (95% CI, 0.811-0.900) in the independent test set and 0.821 (95% CI, 0.781-0.861) in the external-validation cohort. At a 20% risk threshold, the independent-test sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 87.5%, 60.9%, 32.0%, and 95.9%, respectively. SHAP analysis identified ASA physical status, COPD, upper abdominal surgery, age, emergency surgery, albumin, and surgical duration as leading contributors. The model separated patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups with observed PPC rates of 6.9%, 24.4%, and 37.6%. Sensitivity analyses supported robustness to pulmonary-function missingness and temporal variation. Conclusion: An interpretable gradient-boosting model may support risk-stratified perioperative assessment for elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Prospective multicenter validation is required before routine clinical implementation.
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.