ArticleHeliyon2024
Machine learning predictive model for aspiration risk in early enteral nutrition patients with severe acute pancreatitis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Aspiration risk prediction models in patients with nasogastric enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-guided nutritional therapy in the ICU.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2026Review
- ICU-acquired weakness in critically ill patients at risk of malnutrition: risk factors, biomarkers, and early enteral nutrition impact.World journal of emergency 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to build and validate a risk prediction model for aspiration in severe acute pancreatitis patients receiving early enteral nutrition (EN) by identifying risk factors for aspiration in these patients. Methods: The risk factors for aspiration were analyzed to build a prediction model based on the data collected from 339 patients receiving enteral nutrition. Subsequently, we used six machine learning algorithms and the model was validated by the area under the curve. Results: In this study, the collected data were divided into two groups: a training cohort and a validation cohort. The results showed that 28.31 % (77) of patients had aspiration and 71.69 % (195) of patients had non-aspiration in training cohort. Moreover, age, consciousness, mechanical ventilation, aspiration history, nutritional risk and number of comorbidities were included as predictive factors for aspiration in patients receiving EN. The XGBoost model is the best of all machine learning models, with an AUROC of 0.992 and an F1 value of 0.902. The specificity and accuracy of XGBoost are higher than those of traditional logistic regression. Conclusion: In accordance with the predictive factors, XGBoost model, characterized by excellent discrimination and high accuracy, can be used to clinically identify severe acute pancreatitis patients with a high risk of enteral nutrition aspiration. Relevance to clinical practice: This study contributed to the development of a predictive model for early enteral nutrition aspiration in severe acute pancreatitis patients during hospitalization that can be shared with medical staff and patients in the future. No patient or public contribution: This is a retrospective cohort study, and no patient or public contribution was required to design or undertake this research.
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.