ArticlePloS one2026
Justifying model complexity: Evaluating transfer learning against classical models for intraoperative nociception monitoring under anesthesia.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundAccurate intraoperative detection of nociceptive events is essential for optimizing analgesic administration and improving postoperative outcomes. Although deep learning approaches promise improved modeling of complex physiologic dynamics, their added computational and operational complexity may not translate into clinically meaningful benefit, particularly in small, high-resolution perioperative datasets.
methodsWe performed a head-to-head evaluation of classical supervised models (L1-regularized logistic regression and 50-, 200-tree Random Forests, with and without drug dosing features) against a Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) transfer-learning framework for intraoperative nociception detection. Using 101 adult surgical cases with 30 physiologic and 18 drug dosing features sampled in 5-second windows, models were assessed under leave-one-surgery-out cross-validation using AUROC and AUPRC. We further examined probability calibration, multiple ensemble strategies, permutation importance features, and computational cost in terms of inference operations and memory footprint.
resultsDrug-aware Random Forests of various trees (50 trees vs. 200 trees) achieved the highest discrimination (AUROC 0.716; AUPRC 0.399), outperforming the TCN transfer-learning model (AUROC 0.649; AUPRC 0.311). However, increasing personalization windows in the TCN yielded inconsistent and modest gains (p > 0.05). Isotonic calibration substantially improved probability calibration but did not affect discrimination. No ensemble method surpassed the standalone Random Forest; the gated network consistently assigned >84% weight to the classical model. Computational analysis revealed that while the TCN was more compact in total memory footprint, the smaller, 50-tree Random Forest inference required two orders of magnitude fewer operations, with faster training and lower operational complexity.
conclusionsIn this clinically realistic benchmark, interpretable classical models operating on well-engineered features without personalization matched or exceeded the performance of a personalized deep learning approach while remaining computationally cheaper and simpler to deploy. These findings underscore the importance of rigorously justifying model complexity in perioperative machine learning and suggest that, for intraoperative nociception monitoring, classical approaches may offer a more favorable balance of accuracy, interpretability, and operational efficiency.
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.