ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict hemostatic intervention in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is common in clinical practice and has a wide range of severity. Along with medical therapy, endoscopic intervention is the mainstay treatment for hemostasis in high-risk rebleeding lesions. Predicting the need for endoscopic intervention would be beneficial in resource-limited areas for selective referral to an endoscopic center. The proposed risk stratification scores had limited accuracy. We developed a machine learning model to predict the need for endoscopic intervention in patients with acute UGIB.
methodsA prospectively collected database of UGIB patients from 2011 to 2020 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients older than 18 years diagnosed with UGIB who underwent endoscopy were included. Data comprised demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and laboratory parameters. The cleaned data was used for model development and validation in Python. We conducted 80%-20% split sample training and test sets. The training set was used for supervised learning of 15 models using a stratified 5-fold cross-validation process. The model with the highest AUROC was then internally validated with the test set to evaluate performance.
resultsOf 1389 patients, 615 (44.3%) of the cohorts received the endoscopic intervention (293 variceal- and 336 nonvariceal-bleeding interventions). Eighteen features, including demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and laboratory parameters, were selected as input for 15 machine learning models. The result revealed that the linear discriminant analysis model could achieve the highest AUROC of 0.74 to predict endoscopic intervention. The model was validated with the test set, in which the AUROC was increased from 0.74 to 0.81. Finally, the model was deployed as a web application by Streamlit.
conclusionsOur machine learning model can identify patients with acute UGIB who need endoscopic intervention with good performance. This may help primary care physicians prioritize patients who need referrals and optimize resource allocation in resource-limited areas. Further development and identification of more specific features might improve prediction performance.
trial registrationNone (Retrospective cohort study) PATIENT & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: None.
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.