ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Utilizing machine learning models for predicting outcomes in acute pancreatitis: development and validation in three retrospective cohorts.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation After Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Management and Prediction of Acute Pancreatitis Severity Using AI: A Surgical Perspective.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Role of artificial intelligence in determining nutritional risk factors among post-periodontal surgical patients. A scoping review.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based predictive model for chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in colorectal cancer patients.Frontiers in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with a high readmission rate; however, there is a paucity of models capable of predicting post-discharge outcomes. Furthermore, existing in-hospital prediction models exhibit notable limitations. This study leverages machine learning (ML) technology to develop prognosis prediction models for AP patients, encompassing in-hospital mortality, readmission rates, and post-discharge mortality.
methodsA retrospective analysis was carried out on the clinical and laboratory data of AP patients from three databases (MIMIC database, eICU database, and Wenzhou Hospital in China), and they were divided into a training set and two validation sets. In the training set, key variables were screened using univariate logistic regression and the LASSO method. Six ML algorithms were employed to construct predictive models. The performance of these models was appraised using receiver operating characteristic curves, decision curve analysis, Shapley additive explanations plots, and other relevant metrics. A comparison was made between the predictive capabilities of the ML models and clinical scores. Subsequently, the performance of the machine learning models was subjected to further validation within two external validation sets.
resultsA total of 2,559 AP patients were included. There were 12-26 variables selected for model training. Among the six ML models under assessment, the Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) models exhibited relatively superior performance in predicting in-hospital mortality, mortality within 180/365 days after discharge. Findings from the decision curve analysis and two external validation sets further indicated that the XGB model exhibited the optimal performance in predicting the in-hospital mortality of AP patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Specifically, the XGB model demonstrated stability in the area under the curve across different centers, achieved a balance between sensitivity and specificity, and effectively prevented overfitting through regularization mechanisms. These features are highly congruent with the core requirements for robustness in the medical context.
conclusionsBy collecting the dynamic variables of patients during their hospitalization and establishing an XGB model, it is conducive to identifying the short-term and long-term prognoses of AP patients and promoting the decision-making of clinicians. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.