ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Dynamic machine-learning model for early prediction of intraoperative hypotension using 5-minute perioperative time-series data: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Background: Intraoperative hypotension (IOH) is a common and potentially preventable complication strongly associated with postoperative acute kidney injury, myocardial injury, and mortality. Current approaches to IOH management remain largely reactive, and existing prediction tools have variable clinical utility. This study aimed to develop and externally validate a dynamic machine-learning model using routinely collected perioperative data to perform one-step-ahead prediction of intraoperative hypotension on a regularized 5-minute intraoperative grid. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included 702 adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia for model development and internal validation and an independent external cohort of 248 patients. A dynamic prediction framework was constructed using routinely collected preoperative variables and intraoperative 5-minute time-series data. Individualized baseline features and temporal predictors were derived from rolling observation windows. Four machine-learning algorithms were compared using a fully nested grouped cross-validation framework with external validation. Model performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, decision-curve analysis, and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)-based interpretability. Results: All four machine-learning models demonstrated good discrimination in the primary fully nested case-grouped internal validation, with AUROC values ranging from 0.842 to 0.857. Random forest achieved the highest AUROC (0.857, 95% CI 0.841-0.868), the highest AUPRC (0.413, 95% CI 0.367-0.452), and extra trees achieved the lowest Brier score (0.093, 95% CI 0.088-0.098). In the independent external validation cohort, random forest remained the best-performing model, yielding an AUROC of 0.894 (95% CI 0.875-0.907), an AUPRC of 0.540 (95% CI 0.457-0.596), and a Brier score of 0.092 (95% CI 0.083-0.102). SHAP analysis consistently identified MAP-derived features, including current MAP, recent hypotensive burden, recent MAP measurements, relative MAP reduction, and MAP variability, as the most influential predictors across all four models. Conclusions: A dynamic machine-learning model using routinely collected perioperative time-series data accurately predicted MAP <65 mmHg at the next scheduled 5-minute intraoperative time point in an independent external cohort. These findings support further evaluation of this short-horizon risk stratification model in prospective clinical workflow studies.
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.