ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict prognosis in liver failure patients treated with non-bioartificial liver support system.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Machine learning-based algorithms for the prediction of 90-day survival in patients with liver failure receiving artificial liver therapy.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
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
Background and objectives: The prognosis of liver failure treated with non-bioartificial liver support systems is poor. Detecting its risk factors and developing relevant prognostic models still represent the top priority to lower its death risk. Methods: All 215 patients with liver failure treated with non-bioartificial liver support system were retrospectively analyzed. Potential prognostic factors were investigated, and the Nomogram and the Random Survival Forests (RSF) models were constructed, respectively. Notably, we evaluated the performance of models and calculated the risk scores to divide patients into low-risk and high-risk groups. Results: In the training set, multifactorial Cox regression analysis showed that etiology, hepatic encephalopathy, total bilirubin, serum alkaline phosphatase, platelets, and MELD score were independent factors of short-term prognosis. The RSF model (AUC: 0.863, 0.792) performed better in prediction than the Nomogram model (AUC: 0.816, 0.756) and MELD (AUC: 0.658, 0.700) in the training and validation groups. On top of that, patients in the low-risk group had a significantly better prognosis than those in the high-risk group. Conclusion: We constructed the RSF model with etiology, hepatic encephalopathy, total bilirubin, serum alkaline phosphatase, platelets, and MELD score, which showed better prognostic power than the Nomogram model and MELD score and could help physicians make optimal treatment decisions.
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.