ArticleScientific reports2025
Prediction of gastrointestinal hemorrhage in cardiology inpatients using an interpretable XGBoost model.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Interpretable machine learning for presurgical differentiation of Hürthle cell carcinoma and adenoma: a SHAP-augmented approach.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Clinician perspectives on explainability in AI-driven closed-loop neurotechnology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) occurs more frequently in cardiovascular patients than in the general population, significantly affecting morbidity and mortality. However, existing predictive models often lack sufficient accuracy and interpretability. We developed an interpretable and practical machine learning model to predict the risk of GIB in cardiology inpatients. This retrospective study analyzed electronic health records of 10,706 patients admitted to the Department of Cardiology at the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University from October 8, 2019, to October 30, 2024. Variables with > 30% missing data were excluded, leaving 35 potential predictors. The dataset was randomly split into a training cohort (80%, n = 9,356) and a test cohort (20%, n = 2,340). GIB occurred in 110 patients (1.03%). Ten variables were identified as the strongest predictors: hemoglobin (importance score: 0.16), creatinine (0.12), D-dimer (0.10), NT-proBNP (0.06), glucose (0.06), white blood cell count (0.06), body weight (0.06), serum albumin (0.04), urea (0.04), and age (0.04). Among seven machine learning classifiers, XGBoost performed best, with an AUC of 0.995 in the validation cohort. In the validation set, the model achieved an accuracy of 0.975, sensitivity of 0.769, and specificity of 0.996. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis confirmed hemoglobin, creatinine, and D-dimer as the top contributors to GIB risk. The model demonstrated excellent calibration (Brier score = 0.016), and decision curve analysis supported its clinical utility across various risk thresholds. The XGBoost model offers high accuracy and interpretability in predicting GIB risk among cardiology inpatients. It holds promise for clinical decision support by enabling early risk identification and personalized prevention strategies.
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.