ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Interpretable machine learning model for predicting hemorrhage following ultrasound-guided percutaneous renal biopsy: a multicenter study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to develop and validate an interpretable machine learning (ML) model for predicting post-procedural hemorrhage (PH) after ultrasound-guided percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB), aiding perioperative management. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using data from 664 patients to develop and internally validate the predictive model. Key ultrasound parameters and clinical data were collected. The Boruta algorithm selected predictive factors. Eight ML models underwent hyperparameter tuning with 5-fold cross-validation, using the area under the curve (AUC) to determine the best model, which was further validated externally (n = 137). Model interpretation was enhanced using SHAP values.
resultsImportant predictive factors identified included renal parenchymal thickness (RPT), distance from the puncture point to the lower edge of the kidney (D1), and the ratio of D1 to the Renal length (R1), disease course, eGFR and prothrombin time (PT). The random forest model outperformed others with AUCs of 0.831, 0.784, and 0.776 for the training, internal validation, and external validation sets, respectively, displaying an accuracy of 0.742, sensitivity of 0.675, specificity of 0.805, and F1 score of 0.691. SHAP analysis highlighted prolonged PT, thinner RPT, smaller D1, lower eGFR, and extended disease course as increasing PH risk.
conclusionThe random forest model effectively predicts PH post-PRB, supporting early diagnosis and decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42207295What 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.