ArticleScientific reports2025
New machine-learning models outperform conventional risk assessment tools in Gastrointestinal bleeding.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Hemostatic Decision-Making: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications and Implementation Barriers.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative performance of manual triage systems and ML models in predicting clinical outcomes among patients transported to the emergency department by emergency medical services.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of gout flares during hospitalization in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical practice patterns in the pre-endoscopic management of individuals presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of an international survey.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Pyroptosis-immunity-microbiome axis in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: mechanisms, risk prediction, and individualized strategies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Assessment of the Prognostic Value of the ABC Score in Non-Variceal UGIB Showing Superiority to Traditional Scores, With Room for Improvement: A Retrospective Observational Study.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025Article
- Association between the blood urea nitrogen-albumin ratio and mortality in critically ill patients with gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Machine Learning Models Versus Conventional Clinical Risk Scores.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning in gastrointestinal endoscopy: challenges and opportunities.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.