ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for standard spleen volume prediction.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Splenomegaly serves as a crucial indicator for various diseases, particularly in hepatosplenomegaly and hematological disorders. Accurate assessment of splenomegaly is essential for improving diagnostic accuracy and treatment decisions, yet individualized diagnosis necessitates a standard reference for splenic volume. This study aimed to develop an interpretable machine learning (ML) model to evaluate standard splenic volume (SSV), enhancing personalized clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1,186 volunteers from a multicenter cohort and evaluated 11 ML algorithms. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were employed for feature selection and interpretation. Model performance was rigorously evaluated through key metrics such as root mean squared error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R Results: Model development and internal validation involved 511 eligible volunteers, with external validation from an additional 111 volunteers. The random forest (RF) model (ML_SSV) integrating features such as age, body weight (BW), body height, body mass index (BMI), body surface area (BSA), red blood cell count, platelet count, total bilirubin, fibrinogen, and D-dimer, demonstrated exceptional predictive accuracy. In external validation, the model achieved an RMSE of 22.6 mL (R Conclusions: This study establishes a novel interpretable ML model rigorously validated through statistical and clinical benchmarks. These models enable the assessment of SSV, providing a reference baseline for the individualized diagnosis of splenomegaly to enhance diagnostic accuracy and support data-driven 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.