SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2026
Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Length of Stay for General Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in World journal of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLength of stay (LoS) prediction is vital for optimizing surgical patient flow and resource allocation. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models may enhance LoS prediction, yet their validity and clinical utility in General Surgery remain unclear.
methodsEmbase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched to June 2025. Studies employing AI or ML to predict LoS or discharge timing in adult General Surgery cohorts were included. Data on model development, predictor and target variables, performance, and validation were extracted. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST + AI. A checklist was developed to guide future LoS-prediction research.
resultsNine of 4115 screened records met inclusion criteria. Classifier models with low overall risk of bias achieved moderate discrimination (AUROC 0.71-0.83), whereas regression models performed poorly (RMSE 4.6-12.7 days). Methodological weaknesses were frequent, including data leakage, temporally invalid predictors, biased patient selection, limited external validation, and incomplete performance reporting. Important predictors commonly included ASA score, age and operative duration; psychosocial and home-support features were rarely considered. Outcome definitions and intended applications varied substantially, limiting direct comparison of performance. Models predicting discharge within short, dynamically reassessed time horizons may achieve greater accuracy, but offer limited capacity for longer-term bed forecasting. No included study benchmarked ML or AI predictions against usual clinician LoS estimates. Low-bias models were retrospective and generally internally validated, so performance in prospective or external cohorts remains unknown. More complex neural network models did not consistently outperform simpler methods. This review identifies recurring barriers to prospective clinical application for routine real-world use.
conclusionAI and ML models can moderately predict LoS for General Surgery patients, but generalizability is limited by methodological bias, incomplete reporting, and non-standard outcome definitions. Current models appear more suited to hospital-wide forecasting than bedside decision support. Future development should use prospectively available predictors, clinically meaningful outcomes, transparent performance reporting, and external validation. The proposed framework highlights strategies to avoid common methodological flaws in models published to date.
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.