ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Improved outcome prediction in acute pancreatitis with generated data and advanced machine learning algorithms.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Non-invasive liquid biopsy based on metabolomic profiling improves diagnosis and early warning of severe acute pancreatitis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTraditional scoring systems have been widely used to predict acute pancreatitis (AP) severity but have limitations in predictive accuracy. This study investigates the use of machine learning (ML) algorithms to improve predictive accuracy in AP.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted using data from 101 AP patients in a tertiary hospital in Türkiye. Data were preprocessed, and synthetic data were generated with Gaussian noise addition and balanced with the ADASYN algorithm, resulting in 250 cases. Supervised ML models, including random forest (RF) and XGBoost (XGB), were trained, tested, and validated against traditional clinical scores (Ranson's, modified Glasgow, and BISAP) using area under the curve (AUC), F1 score, and recall.
resultsRF outperformed XGB with an AUC of 0.89, F1 score of 0.82, and recall of 0.82. BISAP showed balanced performance (AUC = 0.70, F1 = 0.44, and recall = 0.85), whereas the Glasgow criteria had the highest recall but lower precision (AUC = 0.70, F1 = 0.38, and recall = 0.95). Ranson's admission criteria were the least effective (AUC = 0.53, F1 = 0.42, and recall = 0.39), probable because it lacked the 48
conclusionML models, especially RF, significantly outperform traditional clinical scores in predicting adverse outcomes in AP, suggesting that integrating ML into clinical practice could improve prognostic assessments.
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.