ArticleAnnals of thoracic surgery short reports2026
The Cutting Edge: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Predicting Esophagectomy Outcomes.
Article in Annals of thoracic surgery short reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophagectomy carries high risks and complications. Traditional outcome prediction models often fail to account for the multifactorial nature of postoperative outcomes. This systematic review evaluates the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) models in predicting outcomes after esophagectomy. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed and Embase was conducted to identify studies published from January 2014 to June 2024. Inclusion criteria were observational studies or clinical trials using AI/ML models to predict esophagectomy outcomes. Studies were assessed for quality, and data were extracted on study characteristics, patient demographics, AI/ML models used, and predictive outcomes. Results: Of 187 studies identified, 19 met the inclusion criteria. These studies, conducted across various countries, employed models such as random forest, neural networks, and gradient boosting machines. The most common outcomes predicted were postoperative complications, long-term survival, and early recurrence and readmission. Random forest models frequently demonstrated strong predictive performance, with area under the curve values often exceeding 0.8. The studies demonstrated the potential of AI/ML in enhancing prediction accuracy but highlighted significant variability in models and methodologies. Conclusions: AI/ML models show promise in enhancing the predictive accuracy of esophagectomy outcomes. However, the variability in methodologies underscores the need for standardization in model development and validation. Future research should focus on larger, multi-institutional studies to improve the generalizability and clinical applicability of these models.
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.