Machine learning application in the prediction of postoperative delirium among elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis systematically evaluates machine learning (ML) applications for predicting postoperative delirium (POD) among elderly patients. This study compares predictive performance across models, assesses generalizability and evaluates bias risk. The goal is to provide clinicians with evidence-based guidance for selecting and implementing relevant prediction tools. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines we searched PubMed Web of Science and the CochraneLibrary for studies published between July 17 2020, and July 17, 2025. We included studies that developed ML models to predict POD in elderly surgical patients. Model performance metrics were extracted. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses and risk of bias assessments were performed using PROBAST. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies comprising 49 prediction models were included, collectively enrolling 874,485 patients with a pooled POD incidence of 9.86%. The pooled Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) for ML models predicting POD was 0.756 (95% CI: 0.740-0.772), indicating moderate predictive performance. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I² = 95.7%). Among individual algorithms, Logistic Regression (LR) (AUC = 0.794), XGBoost (AUC = 0.773), and LightGBM (AUC = 0.772) showed superior discriminative performance, whereas Decision Trees (DT) performed poorly (AUC = 0.641). In validation analyses, models showed better performance in internal validation (AUC = 0.760) compared with external validation (AUC = 0.745). In external validation, Support Vector Machines (SVM) achieved excellent performance (AUC = 0.808), while XGBoost maintained stable performance (AUC = 0.755). A significant negative correlation was observed between sample size and model performance in external validation (ρ = -0.613, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: ML models demonstrate moderate predictive performance for POD among elderly patients. LR and XGBoost emerged as the top-performing algorithms, whereas DT exhibited relatively poor discriminative ability. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across studies. Notably, external validation revealed a significant negative correlation between sample size and model performance. Future research should enhance methodological quality, conduct rigorous external validation to confirm model generalizability, and prioritize clinical interpretability to promote clinical use.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery
Published
2026-05-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-026-04084-5
Primary Topic
Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Machine learning application in the prediction of postoperative delirium among elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiangyang Yu, Yuxing Wang, Wenyuan Zhang, Qing Cheng et al.
Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery
Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
article

Machine learning application in the prediction of postoperative delirium among elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xiangyang Yu, Yuxing Wang, Wenyuan Zhang, Qing Cheng, Shiyu Chen
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis systematically evaluates machine learning (ML) applications for predicting postoperative delirium (POD) among elderly patients. This study compares predictive performance across models, assesses generalizability and evaluates bias risk. The goal is to provide clinicians with evidence-based guidance for selecting and implementing relevant prediction tools. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines we searched PubMed Web of Science and the CochraneLibrary for studies published between July 17 2020, and July 17, 2025. We included studies that developed ML models to predict POD in elderly surgical patients. Model performance metrics were extracted. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses and risk of bias assessments were performed using PROBAST. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies comprising 49 prediction models were included, collectively enrolling 874,485 patients with a pooled POD incidence of 9.86%. The pooled Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) for ML models predicting POD was 0.756 (95% CI: 0.740-0.772), indicating moderate predictive performance. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I² = 95.7%). Among individual algorithms, Logistic Regression (LR) (AUC = 0.794), XGBoost (AUC = 0.773), and LightGBM (AUC = 0.772) showed superior discriminative performance, whereas Decision Trees (DT) performed poorly (AUC = 0.641). In validation analyses, models showed better performance in internal validation (AUC = 0.760) compared with external validation (AUC = 0.745). In external validation, Support Vector Machines (SVM) achieved excellent performance (AUC = 0.808), while XGBoost maintained stable performance (AUC = 0.755). A significant negative correlation was observed between sample size and model performance in external validation (ρ = -0.613, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: ML models demonstrate moderate predictive performance for POD among elderly patients. LR and XGBoost emerged as the top-performing algorithms, whereas DT exhibited relatively poor discriminative ability. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across studies. Notably, external validation revealed a significant negative correlation between sample size and model performance. Future research should enhance methodological quality, conduct rigorous external validation to confirm model generalizability, and prioritize clinical interpretability to promote clinical use.

Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery
Children's Hospital of Zhejiang University (CN), First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University (CN)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.