ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Risk prediction and effect evaluation of complicated appendicitis based on XGBoost modeling.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in acute appendicitis: A comprehensive review of machine learning and deep learning applications.World journal of 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe distinction between complicated appendicitis (CAP) and uncomplicated appendicitis (UAP) remains challenging. The purpose of this study was to construct a safe and economical diagnostic model that can accurately and rapidly differentiate between CAP and UAP.
methodsPatient data from 773 appendectomies were retrospectively collected, important features were selected using random forests, and the data were divided into training and test sets in a 3:1 ratio. An integrated learning algorithm, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), was introduced to predict the risk of CAP and compared with Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and Decision Tree (CART) algorithms. A comprehensive comparison of the four algorithms was performed using model performance metrics such as the area under the receiver's operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, negative predictive value(NPV), positive predictive value(PPV),calibration curves, and clinical decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultThe results show that all four prediction models exhibit some predictive ability. The XGBoost model showed the best prediction with AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity,NPV and PPV of 0.914, 0.855, 0.865, 0.846,0.848 and 0.897, respectively, followed by the SVM model with results of AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity,NPV and PPV of 0.882, 0.819, 0.865, 0.779, 0.770 and 0.871, respectively. XGBoost and SVM models show very good calibration. The XGBoost model showed better net clinical benefit compared to the DCA curves of the other models.
conclusionPredictive models based on the XGBoost algorithm have good performance in predicting the risk of acute appendicitis progressing to complicated appendicitis, which helps to optimize clinical decision making.
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.