ArticleScientific reports2024
Efficacy of automated machine learning models and feature engineering for diagnosis of equivocal appendicitis using clinical and computed tomography findings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Survey on Online AutoML and Adversarial Robustness for IoT and EV Charging Network Security.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Hybrid Model with Quantum Feature Map Based on CNN and Vision Transformer for Clinical Support in Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in abdominal imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Multistep Machine Learning Pipeline For Polymeric Nanoparticle Design.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2025Article
- The value of using deep learning to predict proliferative hepatocellular carcinoma based on multiphasic magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Estimated ultimate recovery prediction of shale gas wells based on stacked integrated learning algorithm.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the diagnostic efficacy of automated machine learning (AutoGluon) with automated feature engineering and selection (autofeat), focusing on clinical manifestations, and a model integrating both clinical manifestations and CT findings in adult patients with ambiguous computed tomography (CT) results for acute appendicitis (AA). This evaluation was compared with conventional single machine learning models such as logistic regression(LR) and established scoring systems such as the Adult Appendicitis Score(AAS) to address the gap in diagnostic approaches for uncertain AA cases. In this retrospective analysis of 303 adult patients with indeterminate CT findings, the cohort was divided into appendicitis (n = 115) and non-appendicitis (n = 188) groups. AutoGluon and autofeat were used for AA prediction. The AutoGluon-clinical model relied solely on clinical data, whereas the AutoGluon-clinical-CT model included both clinical and CT data. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and other metrics for the test dataset, namely accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and F1 score, were used to compare AutoGluon models with single machine learning models and the AAS. The single ML models in this study were LR, LASSO regression, ridge regression, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting. Feature importance values were extracted using the "feature_importance" attribute from AutoGluon. The AutoGluon-clinical model demonstrated an AUROC of 0.785 (95% CI 0.691-0.890), and the ridge regression model with only clinical data revealed an AUROC of 0.755 (95% CI 0.649-0.861). The AutoGluon-clinical-CT model (AUROC 0.886 with 95% CI 0.820-0.951) performed better than the ridge model using clinical and CT data (AUROC 0.852 with 95% CI 0.774-0.930, p = 0.029). A new feature, exp(-(duration from pain to CT)
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.