ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024
Correlation analysis and recurrence evaluation system for patients with recurrent hepatolithiasis: a multicentre retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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.
- LaparoscopicWorld journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of recurrent extrahepatic bile duct stones after common bile duct exploration: a comparative study of models and SHAP-driven interpretability analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods for accurately predicting the prognosis of patients with recurrent hepatolithiasis (RH) after biliary surgery are lacking. This study aimed to develop a model that dynamically predicts the risk of hepatolithiasis recurrence using a machine-learning (ML) approach based on multiple clinical high-order correlation data. Materials and methods: Data from patients with RH who underwent surgery at five centres between January 2015 and December 2020 were collected and divided into training and testing sets. Nine predictive models, which we named the Correlation Analysis and Recurrence Evaluation System (CARES), were developed and compared using machine learning (ML) methods to predict the patients' dynamic recurrence risk within 5 post-operative years. We adopted a k-fold cross validation with k = 10 and tested model performance on a separate testing set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the performance of the models, and the significance and direction of each predictive variable were interpreted and justified based on Shapley Additive Explanations. Results: Models based on ML methods outperformed those based on traditional regression analysis in predicting the recurrent risk of patients with RH, with Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) showing the best performance, both yielding an AUC (Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve) of∼0.9 or higher at predictions. These models were proved to have even better performance on testing sets than in a 10-fold cross validation, indicating that the model was not overfitted. The SHAP method revealed that immediate stone clearance, final stone clearance, number of previous surgeries, and preoperative CA19-9 index were the most important predictors of recurrence after reoperation in RH patients. An online version of the CARES model was implemented. Conclusion: The CARES model was firstly developed based on ML methods and further encapsulated into an online version for predicting the recurrence of patients with RH after hepatectomy, which can guide clinical decision-making and personalised postoperative surveillance.
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.