ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Predicting patient care pathway deviations and their consequences in anaesthesia using machine learning.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deviation from the intended perioperative care pathway, particularly unplanned admission after day-case surgery, affects patient safety and the efficient organisation of care. We aimed to develop and compare interpretable machine-learning models predicting such deviations from information available before surgery. In this retrospective study, 51,112 consecutive ambulatory anaesthesia procedures from a Belgian network were analysed, with unplanned admission as the outcome. Data were partitioned into training, validation, and test sets; class imbalance was addressed with SMOTENC on the training data alone. Seven algorithms: logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, histogram-based gradient boosting, and explainable boosting machine (EBM) were compared using discrimination, precision-recall, and calibration metrics at two operating points (fixed sensitivity and fixed specificity). Unplanned admission occurred in 9.08% of patients. Discrimination varied markedly, the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve achieved by the explainable boosting machine (EBM, 0.826), the lowest by logistic regression (0.595). Given the rarity of the outcome, precision-recall was most informative: the EBM attained both the highest average precision (0.472) and F1-score (0.392), exceeding the black-box ensembles while remaining intrinsically interpretable. Performance was stable between validation and test sets, arguing against overfitting, although all models over-estimated risk and need recalibration. Machine learning applied to routinely collected data can identify patients at risk of deviating from their intended day-case pathway with stable performance and the potential for clinical usefulness. The explainable boosting machine is especially attractive, combining competitive accuracy with transparency. Prospective validation and recalibration of the predicted probabilities will be required before clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42709367What 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.