ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Machine learning for operative time prediction in robotic ventral hernia repair patients: Perspective on predictive model development and validation.
Article in Langenbeck's archives 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is increasingly applied to predict operative time in surgery, yet its role in robotic ventral hernia repair (VHR) remains unexplored. Brucchi and colleagues recently developed ML models, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and Ridge Regression, to predict operative time in 208 patients undergoing elective robotic VHR, achieving modest performance with Random Forest (R² = 0.22, MAE = 38 min). While this proof‑of‑concept study represents a novel application, several methodological considerations warrant attention before clinical translation. These include the absence of comparison with traditional statistical methods, the omission of surgeon‑level temporal data and learning curve dynamics, the lack of external validation, and the gap between SHAP‑based interpretability and actionable clinical utility. This Matters Arising offers a perspective on these considerations and proposes directions for future refinement, including incorporation of surgeon‑specific metrics, benchmarking against conventional regression models, external validation, and integration into clinical workflows, to enhance the predictive accuracy and clinical applicability of ML‑based operative time prediction in abdominal wall surgery.
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.