ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
How machine learning on real world clinical data improves adverse event recording for endoscopy.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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.
- Integrated Evidence from VigiBase and Clinical Trials: A Comprehensive Pharmacovigilance Analysis of Seven Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs).Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Article
- Harnessing big data and artificial intelligence in transfusion medicine: Opportunities for precision, safety and efficiency.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- Augmenting Electronic Health Records for Adverse Event Detection.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
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
Endoscopic interventions are essential for diagnosing and treating gastrointestinal conditions. Accurate and comprehensive documentation is crucial for enhancing patient safety and optimizing clinical outcomes; however, adverse events remain underreported. This study evaluates a machine learning-based approach for systematically detecting endoscopic adverse events from real-world clinical metadata, including structured hospital data such as ICD-codes and procedure timings. Using a random forest classifier detecting adverse events perforation, bleeding, and readmission, we analysed 2490 inpatient cases, achieving significant improvements over baseline prediction accuracy. The model achieved AUC-ROC/AUC-PR values of 0.9/0.69 for perforation, 0.84/0.64 for bleeding, and 0.96/0.9 for readmissions. Results highlight the importance of multiple metadata features for robust predictions. This semi-automated method offers a privacy-preserving tool for identifying documentation discrepancies and enhancing quality control. By integrating metadata analysis, this approach supports better clinical decision-making, quality improvement initiatives, and resource allocation while reducing the risk of missed adverse events in endoscopy.
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.