ArticleBiomolecules & biomedicine2025
Enhancing clinical decision-making in closed pelvic fractures with machine learning models.
Article in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Pelvic Fracture Diagnosis and Outcome Prediction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission risk in day surgery lung cancer patients after lobectomy or sublobectomy: a real-world study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Prognostic model and U-shaped SBP-risk correlation in unstable pelvic fractures with TBI.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Closed pelvic fractures can lead to severe complications, including hemodynamic instability (HI) and mortality. Accurate prediction of these risks is crucial for effective clinical management. This study aimed to utilize various machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict HI and death in patients with closed pelvic fractures and identify relevant risk factors. The retrospective study included 208 patients diagnosed with pelvic fractures and admitted to Suning Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital between 2019 and 2023. Among these, 133 cases were identified as closed PFs. Patients with closed fractures were divided into a training set (n = 115) and a test set (n = 18). The training set was further stratified into two groups based on hemodynamic stability: Group A (patients with HI) and Group B (patients with hemodynamic stability). A total of 40 clinical variables were collected, and multiple machine learning algorithms were employed to develop predictive models, including logistic regression (LR), C5.0 Decision Tree (DT), Naive Bayes (NB), support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbors (KNN), random Forest (RF), and artificial neural network (ANN). Additionally, factor analysis was performed to assess the interrelationships between variables. The RF and LR algorithms outperformed traditional methods-such as central venous pressure (CVP) and intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurements-in predicting HI. The RF model achieved an average under the ROC (AUC) of 0.92, with an accuracy of 0.86, precision of 0.81, and an F1 score of 0.87. The LR model had an average AUC of 0.82 but shared the same accuracy, precision, and F1 score as the RF model. Key risk factors identified included TILE grade, heart rate (HR), creatinine (CR), white blood cell count (WBC), fibrinogen (FIB), and lactic acid (LAC), with LAC levels >3.7 and an injury severity score (ISS) >13 as significant predictors of HI and mortality. In conclusion, the RF and LR algorithms are effective in predicting HI and mortality risk in patients with closed PFs, enhancing clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes.
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.