Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39984590›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

New machine-learning models outperform conventional risk assessment tools in Gastrointestinal bleeding.

Eszter Boros, József Pintér, Roland Molontay, Kristóf Gergely Prószéky, Nóra Vörhendi, Orsolya Anna Simon, Brigitta Teutsch, Dániel Pálinkás, Levente Frim, Edina Tari and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Eszter BorosInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
József PintérDepartment of Stochastics, Institute of Mathematics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary.
Roland MolontayDepartment of Stochastics, Institute of Mathematics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary.
Kristóf Gergely PrószékyDepartment of Stochastics, Institute of Mathematics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary.
Nóra VörhendiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Orsolya Anna SimonInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Brigitta TeutschInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Dániel PálinkásCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Levente FrimInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Edina TariCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Endre Botond GagyiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Imre SzabóFirst Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Roland HágendornFirst Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Áron VinczeFirst Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Ferenc IzbékiFejér County Szent György University Teaching Hospital, Székesfehérvár, Hungary.
Zsolt Abonyi-TóthCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Andrea SzentesiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Vivien VassInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Péter HegyiInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Bálint ErőssInstitute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. dr.eross.balint@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid and accurate identification of high-risk acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) patients is essential. We developed two machine-learning (ML) models to calculate the risk of in-hospital mortality in patients admitted due to overt GIB. We analyzed the prospective, multicenter Hungarian GIB Registry's data. The predictive performance of XGBoost and CatBoost machine-learning algorithms with the Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall and ABC scores were compared. We evaluated our models using five-fold cross-validation, and performance was measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Overall, we included 1,021 patients in the analysis. In-hospital death occurred in 108 cases. The XGBoost and the CatBoost model identified patients who died with an AUC of 0.84 (CI:0.76-0.90; 0.77-0.90; respectively) in the internal validation set, whereas the GBS and pre-endoscopic Rockall clinical scoring system's performance was significantly lower, AUC values of 0.68 (CI:0.62-0.74) and 0.62 (CI:0.56-0.67), respectively. ABC score had an AUC of 0.77 (CI:0.71-0.83). The XGBoost model had a specificity of 0.96 (CI:0.92-0.98) at a sensitivity of 0.25 (CI:0.10-0.43) compared with the CatBoost model, which had a specificity of 0.74 (CI:0.66-0.83) at a sensitivity of 0.78 (CI:0.57-0.95). XGBoost and the CatBoost models evaluate the mortality risk of acute GI bleeding better, than the conventional risk assessment tools.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal HemorrhageMachine LearningAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveFemaleHospital MortalityHumansHungaryMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRegistriesRisk AssessmentROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID39984590
PMCPMC11845789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.