ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2024
Accurate diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the emergency department: an artificial intelligence-based approach.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revolutionizing non-traumatic acute care: a review of the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in triaging and diagnosis.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in acute appendicitis: A comprehensive review of machine learning and deep learning applications.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Challenges and Patient Safety: The Critical Role of Accuracy - A Systematic Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- Machine-learning based prediction of appendicitis for patients presenting with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2024Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of abdominal pain in emergency departments is challenging, and appendicitis is a common concern. Atypical symptoms often delay diagnosis. Although the Alvarado score aids in decision-making, its low specificity can lead to unnecessary surgeries. By leveraging machine learning, we aim to enhance diagnostic accuracy by predicting appendicitis and distinguishing it from other causes of abdominal pain in the emergency department. Data were collected from 534 patients who presented with acute abdominal pain. Patient characteristics, laboratory results, and causes of pain were recorded. Machine learning algorithms (support vector classifier, random forest classifier, gradient boosting classifier, and Gaussian naive Bayes) were used to predict the cause of pain. Model calibration was assessed using the Brier score. The mean age was 46.89 (20.3) years, with an almost equal sex distribution (49% male, 51% female). Cholecystitis was the most prevalent outcome (37.07%), followed by appendicitis (25.84%). The Gaussian naive Bayes model exhibited superior performance in terms of accuracy (95.03% 95% CI 90.44-97.83%), sensitivity (87.18% 95% CI 72.57-95.70%), and specificity (97.54% 95% CI 92.98-99.49%), while the random forest model showed a sensitivity of 79.49%, specificity of 96.72%, and accuracy of 92.55%. The gradient boosting algorithm achieved a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 89.74%, 95.90%, and 94.41%, respectively. The support vector classifier demonstrated a sensitivity of 89.74%, specificity of 92.62%, and accuracy of 91.93%. The use of modern machine learning methods aids in the accurate diagnosis of appendicitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39167270What 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.