ArticleGastroenterology2024
Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Model Compared With Clinical Risk Scores for Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of Blood Transfusion Need and Dose in Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Retrospective Multicenter Prediction Model Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Noninvasive PPROM risk stratification with explainable AI using routine antenatal CRP and albumin.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Hemostatic Decision-Making: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications and Implementation Barriers.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and internal validation of a machine learning-based model to predict 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding with type 2 diabetes.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- A Clustering-Based Machine Learning Approach for Mortality Prediction in Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Development and Validation.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine: prevention, diagnosis, and intervention.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Development and Validation of an Explainable Machine Learning Model for Prediction of Massive Transfusion in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Toward an integrated risk paradigm: personalizing antithrombotic therapy for coronary heart disease with gastrointestinal bleeding.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of the Prognostic Value of the ABC Score in Non-Variceal UGIB Showing Superiority to Traditional Scores, With Room for Improvement: A Retrospective Observational Study.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Multi-task machine learning for transfusion decision support in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a novel ensemble approach with clinical validation.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Usability and adoption in a randomized trial of GutGPT a GenAI tool for gastrointestinal bleeding.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors and predictive model for gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with ischemic stroke: a case-control study.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Analysis of factors associated with 1-year rebleeding in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and a Glasgow- Blatchford Score ≥ 6 based on serological indicators.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsGuidelines recommend use of risk stratification scores for patients presenting with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) to identify very-low-risk patients eligible for discharge from emergency departments. Machine learning models may outperform existing scores and can be integrated within the electronic health record (EHR) to provide real-time risk assessment without manual data entry. We present the first EHR-based machine learning model for GIB.
methodsThe training cohort comprised 2546 patients and internal validation of 850 patients presenting with overt GIB (ie, hematemesis, melena, and hematochezia) to emergency departments of 2 hospitals from 2014 to 2019. External validation was performed on 926 patients presenting to a different hospital with the same EHR from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of red blood cell transfusion, hemostatic intervention (ie, endoscopic, interventional radiologic, or surgical), and 30-day all-cause mortality. We used structured data fields in the EHR, available within 4 hours of presentation, and compared the performance of machine learning models with current guideline-recommended risk scores, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Oakland Score. Primary analysis was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Secondary analysis was specificity at 99% sensitivity to assess the proportion of patients correctly identified as very low risk.
resultsThe machine learning model outperformed the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.92 vs 0.89; P < .001) and Oakland Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.92 vs 0.89; P < .001). At the very-low-risk threshold of 99% sensitivity, the machine learning model identified more very-low-risk patients: 37.9% vs 18.5% for Glasgow-Blatchford Score and 11.7% for Oakland Score (P < .001 for both comparisons).
conclusionsAn EHR-based machine learning model performs better than currently recommended clinical risk scores and identifies more very-low-risk patients eligible for discharge from the emergency department.
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.