ArticleScientific reports2020
Risk prediction for malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: logistic regression versus machine learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of artificial intelligence in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review.Updates in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- A Multicenter Prospective Study to Develop a Prediction Model for Postherpetic Neuralgia Using Clinical and Laboratory Indicators.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Radiomics analysis of parotid gland tumors using DWI and DCE-MRI: comparison of multiple machine learning models for differential diagnosis.Polish journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Machine learning models using dual-phase CT radiomics for early detection of PRISm.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Cyst Management: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Exploring the new Kyoto guidelines for managing pancreatic cysts: an overview and comparison with previous guidelines.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Comparison of machine-learning and logistic regression models for prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission in electronic health records: A development and validation study.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Machine learning-based prediction models for parathyroid carcinoma using pre-surgery cognitive function and clinical features.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- An open automation system for predatory journal detection.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Machine learning in pancreas surgery, what is new? literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer.Theranostics · 2022Review
- Development of Machine Learning Models to Predict Platinum Sensitivity of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma.Cancers · 2021Article
- Optimal Antihypertensive Medication Adherence Reduces the Effect of Ambient Temperature on Intracerebral Hemorrhage Occurrence: A Case-Crossover Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
61 authors at 20 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Most models for predicting malignant pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms were developed based on logistic regression (LR) analysis. Our study aimed to develop risk prediction models using machine learning (ML) and LR techniques and compare their performances. This was a multinational, multi-institutional, retrospective study. Clinical variables including age, sex, main duct diameter, cyst size, mural nodule, and tumour location were factors considered for model development (MD). After the division into a MD set and a test set (2:1), the best ML and LR models were developed by training with the MD set using a tenfold cross validation. The test area under the receiver operating curves (AUCs) of the two models were calculated using an independent test set. A total of 3,708 patients were included. The stacked ensemble algorithm in the ML model and variable combinations containing all variables in the LR model were the most chosen during 200 repetitions. After 200 repetitions, the mean AUCs of the ML and LR models were comparable (0.725 vs. 0.725). The performances of the ML and LR models were comparable. The LR model was more practical than ML counterpart, because of its convenience in clinical use and simple interpretability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.