ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2026
Predicting Hospital-associated complications in older adults: methodological considerations.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning is increasingly used to predict post-surgical complications, but predictive performance does not guarantee clinical readiness. Shimizu and colleagues developed a promising model for older adults undergoing tibial fracture surgery using a large Japanese database. However, four methodological pitfalls warrant attention. First, the composite outcome was not validated in this population, and excluding in-hospital deaths introduced survivorship bias, underestimating the true burden of severe complications. Second, days to surgery, a variable not known at admission, created target leakage that inflates performance and undermines the admission-time claim. Third, using the test set for feature selection violated TRIPOD guidelines and likely overstated the scorecard's utility. Fourth, the Super Learner exhibited substantial overfitting, with a 0.110 drop between training (AUC = 0.850) and test (AUC = 0.740) performance, while offering only marginal improvement over simpler models. We suggest redeveloping the model with proper internal validation, excluding leakage-prone predictors, treating death as a competing risk, and prioritizing interpretability when complex ensembles offer limited added value. External validation remains essential before clinical implementation.
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.