ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Integration of machine learning and viscoelastic testing to improve survival prediction in horses experiencing acute abdominal pain at a veterinary teaching hospital.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2026. 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.
- In-Depth Analysis of the Prognostic Factors Associated with Short-Term Outcome in Equine Colic Patients: Multicentric Retrospective Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Integration of machine learning and viscoelastic testing to improve survival prediction in horses experiencing acute abdominal pain at a veterinary teaching hospital.Equine veterinary journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundViscoelastic coagulation testing (VCT) identifies subclinical disruption of coagulation homeostasis and may improve prognostication, particularly for patients with severe systemic inflammation or shock. Machine learning (ML) algorithms may capture complex relationships between clinical variables better than linear regression (GLM).
objectiveTo evaluate the utility of ML models incorporating VCT and clinical data to predict survival outcomes in horses with acute abdominal pain. STUDY
designRetrospective observational cohort study.
methodsVCT (VCM Vet™) was performed on 57 horses with acute abdominal pain at admission, with clinical data collected retrospectively. Coagulopathy was defined as ≥2 abnormal VCT parameters. GLM and random forest (RF) classification models were developed to predict short-term survival. A training cohort of 40 horses was used for model development, and model performance was determined using the remaining 17 horses. RF models were implemented in a web-based application to demonstrate clinical application.
resultsThere were 31 survivors and 26 non-survivors. The majority of cases were colitis (47.7%), with smaller proportions of impactions, strangulating obstructions and other causes of colic. Coagulopathy diagnosis alone performed poorly for survival prediction (sensitivity 81% [95% CI 64-94], specificity 31% [95% CI 15-50], AUC = 0.515). Final GLM included SIRS score (OR 0.37 [95% CI 0.071-1.68]; p = 0.2), L-lactate (OR 0.51 [0.25-0.82]; p = 0.02), clot time (CT; OR 1.0 [0.99-1.0], p = 0.39), and clot amplitude at 10 min (A10; OR 0.89 [0.74-1.02], p = 0.2). Final RF model included heart rate, PCV, L-lactate, white blood cell count, neutrophil count, clot amplitude at 20 min (A20) and CT. RF models improved sensitivity (RF MAIN LIMITATIONS: Small number of horses, convenience sampling. Model validation with an independent population is needed to support clinical applicability.
conclusionsL-lactate remains a key predictor of survival in horses with colic. The integration of VCT with clinical data in machine learning models may enhance prognostication.
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.