ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Construction and validation of a machine learning algorithm-based predictive model for difficult colonoscopy insertion.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifficulty of colonoscopy insertion (DCI) significantly affects colonoscopy effectiveness and serves as a key quality indicator. Predicting and evaluating DCI risk preoperatively is crucial for optimizing intraoperative strategies.
aimTo evaluate the predictive performance of machine learning (ML) algorithms for DCI by comparing three modeling approaches, identify factors influencing DCI, and develop a preoperative prediction model using ML algorithms to enhance colonoscopy quality and efficiency.
methodsThis cross-sectional study enrolled 712 patients who underwent colonoscopy at a tertiary hospital between June 2020 and May 2021. Demographic data, past medical history, medication use, and psychological status were collected. The endoscopist assessed DCI using the visual analogue scale. After univariate screening, predictive models were developed using multivariable logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, and random forest (RF) algorithms. Model performance was evaluated based on discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA), and results were visualized using nomograms.
resultsA total of 712 patients (53.8% male; mean age 54.5 years ± 12.9 years) were included. Logistic regression analysis identified constipation [odds ratio (OR) = 2.254, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.289-3.931], abdominal circumference (AC) (77.5-91.9 cm, OR = 1.895, 95%CI: 1.065-3.350; AC ≥ 92 cm, OR = 1.271, 95%CI: 0.730-2.188), and anxiety (OR = 1.071, 95%CI: 1.044-1.100) as predictive factors for DCI, validated by LASSO and RF methods. Model performance revealed training/validation sensitivities of 0.826/0.925, 0.924/0.868, and 1.000/0.981; specificities of 0.602/0.511, 0.510/0.562, and 0.977/0.526; and corresponding area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of 0.780 (0.737-0.823)/0.726 (0.654-0.799), 0.754 (0.710-0.798)/0.723 (0.656-0.791), and 1.000 (1.000-1.000)/0.754 (0.688-0.820), respectively. DCA indicated optimal net benefit within probability thresholds of 0-0.9 and 0.05-0.37. The RF model demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy, reflected by perfect training sensitivity (1.000) and highest validation AUC (0.754), outperforming other methods in clinical applicability.
conclusionThe RF-based model exhibited superior predictive accuracy for DCI compared to multivariable logistic and LASSO regression models. This approach supports individualized preoperative optimization, enhancing colonoscopy quality through targeted risk stratification.
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.