ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2026
Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Postoperative Delirium.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 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: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and serious postoperative complication. Early identification of high-risk patients could facilitate targeted interventions. Objective: To develop and validate a machine learning-based prediction model for POD using a multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed data from 3000 surgical patients, divided into training (n=1400), internal testing (n=600), and external validation (n=1000) cohorts. Eight machine learning algorithms, including Random Forest (RF), XGBoost (XGB), LightGBM (LGBM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), and Naive Bayes (NB), were systematically compared. The optimal model was selected based on Area Under the Curve (AUC), and interpretation was facilitated through SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis. Model calibration was assessed using Brier scores, and discrimination was evaluated through both internal and independent external validation. Results: The Random Forest model demonstrated superior performance (training AUC: 0.913; internal testing AUC: 0.846; external validation AUC: 0.823; Brier score: 0.079), consistently identifying six key predictors: Chinese Mini Mental Status (CMMS) score, Prognostic Nutritional Index, ASA classification, age, dementia, and ICU admission. Conclusion: This comprehensively validated machine learning framework, supported by rigorous multi-institutional validation and systematic algorithm benchmarking, provides an interpretable tool for risk stratification of POD. The identification of nutritional status as a leading predictor highlights previously underutilized targets for perioperative intervention.
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.