ArticleBMJ connections surgery2026
Validation of natural language processing for surgical complication surveillance: detecting 11 postoperative complications from electronic health records.
Article in BMJ connections surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI assistance in tumor multidisciplinary teams.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Towards an AI-driven registry for postoperative complications: a proof-of-concept study evaluating the opportunities and challenges of AI models.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Postoperative complications (PCs) rates are crucial quality metrics in surgery, as they reflect both patient outcomes, perioperative care effectiveness and healthcare resource strain. Despite their importance, efficient, accurate and affordable methods for tracking PCs are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate whether natural language processing (NLP) models could detect 11 PCs from surgical electronic health records at a level comparable to human curation. RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS Retrospective study in 18 hospitals across two regions in Denmark. A total of 17 486 surgical cases spanning 6 years were included. The dataset was divided into training, validation and test sets for NLP-model development and evaluation (50.2%/33.6%/16.2%). Model performance was compared against the current method of PC monitoring (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes) and manual curation, the latter serving as the gold standard. 17 486 surgical cases from spanning 6 years were included. The dataset was divided into training, validation and test sets for NLP-model development and evaluation (50.2%/33.6%/16.2%). Model performance was compared against the current method of PC monitoring (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes) and manual curation, the latter serving as the gold standard. RESULTS The NLP-models had a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve between 0.901 and 0.999 for the test set and significantly outperformed ICD-10 coding in detecting PCs. Sensitivity of the models when compared with manual curation ranged from 0.701 to 1.00, except for myocardial infarction (0.500). Positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 0.0165 to 0.947, and negative predictive value from 0.995 to 1.00. Using a Human-in-the-Loop approach, only 16.3% of cases required manual review to reach a PPV of 1.00. CONCLUSIONS The NLP models alone were able to detect PCs at an acceptable level and outperformed ICD-10 codes. While combining NLP with manual review (Human-in-the-Loop) improved overall accuracy and reduced workload, the models still failed to identify some complications. Therefore, NLP algorithms may support (but not replace) manual surveillance and present a potential solution for more scalable PC monitoring.
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.