ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Artificial intelligence assessment of Parkland's grading scale in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a step toward real-world outcome prediction.
Article in Updates 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Routine real-world use of a surgical artificial-intelligence (AI) platform has led us to adopt Parkland's Grading Scale (PGS) for disease-severity in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). We evaluated model performance in estimating PGS and explored correlations with surgical outcomes. The platform routinely video-captured LCs and automatically assigned PGS scores across 249 consecutive LCs that were classified into Low (PGS 1-2; n = 78, 31.3%) and High (PGS 3-5; n = 171, 68.7%) groups. Surgical outcomes were compared. Case-control matching (CCM; n = 84) was performed to balance possible confounders. Two surgeons independently reviewed a video sample (n = 75) twice to establish ground-truth for F1-score calculations. Model discrimination (AUC) and calibration were evaluated separately against each rater. High-severity cases presented with significantly older age (63.2y vs. 47.1y), higher ASA scores (≥ 3: 29.8% vs. 9%), cholecystitis (47.4% vs. 10.3%), and urgent surgery (12.3% vs. 0) (all p < 0.001). The High group experienced longer operative durations (57.6 vs. 35.3 min; p < 0.001), more intraoperative events (80.1% vs. 61.5%; p = 0.003) and bailouts (10.5% vs. 0; p < 0.001). Hospitalizations were longer (2d vs. 1d; p < 0.001), with more 90-day major complications and readmissions (10.5% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.04). After CCM, operative durations (mean rank 49.51 vs. 35.49; p = 0.008) and hemorrhage-related events (mean rank 46.0 vs. 39.0; p = 0.047) maintained significance. The AI model achieved high F1 scores (High = 0.96, Low = 0.93), strong discrimination (AUC: 0.932 and 0.896), and robust calibration- peaking at PGS = 3. The AI model shows promise for surgical outcome prediction in LC and, with further validation, could be integrated into routine clinical frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42745094What 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.