BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 117916
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.117916
Table 1 Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence algorithms in onco-anaesthesia applications
Algorithm type
Primary mechanism
Key clinical application
Advantages
Limitations
Performance metrics
Random forestEnsemble learning using multiple decision treesPreoperative risk stratification; Metastasis prediction (MoLPre)Handles non-linear data; robust to outliers; explainableCan overfit; less effective for real-time waveformsAUROC 0.73-0.77[6], AUC 0.92 (internal validation), 0.90 (external validation)[17]
Gradient boostingIterative ensemble correcting prior errorsMortality prediction; delirium predictionHigh performance; handles missing dataComputationally intensiveAUC 0.85[31]; AUC 0.840[11]
Stacking ensembleMeta-learning combining RF, XGBoost, SVMEarly recurrence (NSCLC)Improved generalizationComplex implementationAUC 0.81 (test), 0.80 (external validation)[16]
CNNDeep learning for grid-like data (images)Ultrasound guidance; radiomicsState-of-the-art image recognitionLow interpretability; needs large datasets95%-100% accuracy[24]
RNN/LSTMDeep learning for sequential dataHemodynamic prediction (HPI); NociceptionExcellent for waveform analysisHigh computational costAUROC 0.94, Accuracy 0.88[22]
BiLSTM with AttentionBidirectional sequence processingDepth of anesthesia (EEG)Superior temporal extractionComputationally intensive88.7% accuracy[3]
Gaussian process regressionBayesian non-parametric regressionRemifentanil PK predictionUncertainty estimatesIntensive for large datasetsR² = 0.96[3]
Reinforcement learningTrial-and-error optimizationClosed-loop anesthesiaAdapts to patient variabilitySafety concerns during learningCorrelation 0.88[3]
NLPHuman language processingEHR phenotypingUnlocks unstructured textStruggles with medical jargonVariable[6]


Write to the Help Desk