ArticleHeliyon2024
Predictive value of machine learning for the severity of acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Early Prediction of Mortality Risk in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Predictive Performance of Artificial Intelligence Models for Stroke Risk Stratification: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingPooled it
- Acute pancreatitis: mechanisms and therapeutic approaches.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Federated learning for early severity prediction in acute pancreatitis: a multi-center study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Utilizing machine learning models for predicting outcomes in acute pancreatitis: development and validation in three retrospective cohorts.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Necrotic pancreatitis: modern approaches to the prevention of infected necrosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical significance of elevated tumor markers in patients with biliary pancreatitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning predictive model for aspiration risk in early enteral nutrition patients with severe acute pancreatitis.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) early poses a challenge in clinical practice. While there are well-established clinical scoring tools, their actual predictive performance remains uncertain. Various studies have explored the application of machine-learning methods for early AP prediction. However, a more comprehensive evidence-based assessment is needed to determine their predictive accuracy. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the predictive accuracy of machine learning in assessing the severity of AP. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched until December 5, 2023. The risk of bias in eligible studies was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Subgroup analyses, based on different machine learning types, were performed. Additionally, the predictive accuracy of mainstream scoring tools was summarized. Results: This systematic review ultimately included 33 original studies. The pooled c-index in both the training and validation sets was 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.84-0.89) and 0.88 (95 % CI: 0.86-0.90), respectively. The sensitivity in the training set was 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.77-0.84), and in the validation set, it was 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.71-0.85). The specificity in the training set was 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.78-0.89), and in the validation set, it was 0.90 (95 % CI: 0.86-0.93). The primary model incorporated was logistic regression; however, its predictive accuracy was found to be inferior to that of neural networks, random forests, and xgboost. The pooled c-index of the APACHE II, BISAP, and Ranson were 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.68-0.80), 0.77 (95 % CI: 0.70-0.85), and 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.68-0.79), respectively. Conclusions: Machine learning demonstrates excellent accuracy in predicting the severity of AP, providing a reference for updating or developing a straightforward clinical prediction tool.
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.