ArticleiScience2025
Development and external validation of a model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.
Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a common complication in patients undergoing ERCP for choledocholithiasis, yet effective predictive models are lacking. This study included 2,247 patients who underwent ERCP for complete stone removal at the First Affiliated Hospital of USTC from January 2015 to January 2023. Six machine learning algorithms were utilized, incorporating 25 clinical parameters, to develop a predictive model for PEP risk. The random forest (RF) algorithm achieved the highest accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.947 in the internal dataset. Key risk factors for PEP identified include difficult cannulation, a history of pancreatitis, smaller common bile duct diameter, and female gender. Validation with datasets from 12 external centers showed AUC values ranging from 0.576 to 0.913, with an average of 0.768. An interactive R Shiny web application was also developed, offering a user-friendly tool for predicting PEP risk and enabling individualized management.
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.