ReviewCurrent opinion in anaesthesiology2026
Artificial intelligence and predictive analytics in obstetric anesthesia: early warning for maternal complications.
Review in Current opinion in anaesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Perioperative Risk Prediction in Anesthesiology: A Bibliometric and Knowledge-Mapping Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewMaternal morbidity and mortality remain largely preventable, yet current risk-assessment tools identify only a fraction of women who experience severe complications. This review synthesizes recent advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning for early prediction, decision support, and procedural guidance in obstetric anesthesia, with a focus on postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disease, sepsis, hemodynamic instability, neuraxial procedures, and peripartum pain. RECENT
findingsRecently, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated and imaging-based machine learning models have outperformed traditional risk scores for postpartum hemorrhage, placenta accreta spectrum, and pre-eclampsia, and are beginning to incorporate multiomics and genetic data. Obstetric-specific early warning systems and parsimonious machine learning models for maternal sepsis and epidural-related fever show promise but remain limited by sensitivity and external validation. Waveform analytics, noninvasive hemodynamic indices, and artificial intelligence-assisted ultrasound can anticipate hypotension and enhance neuraxial and regional block placement. Machine learning frameworks for postcesarean and chronic postpartum pain, together with virtual reality interventions, support more individualized analgesia. SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence-enabled tools are poised to augment, rather than replace, clinician judgment in obstetric anesthesia. Real-world impact will depend on rigorous external validation, equitable implementation, interpretable model design, seamless EHR integration, and close collaboration between clinicians, data scientists, and vendors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.