ArticleBMJ open2025
Predictive model integrating deep learning and clinical features based on ultrasound imaging data for surgical intervention in intussusception in children younger than 8 months.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- TSNet: a multi-modal deep learning framework for subtyping appendicitis: integrating ultrasound images, handcrafted features, and clinical data.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Fluoroscopic image-driven deep learning model for predicting intussusception irreducibility during air enema in children.BMC medical imaging · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to identify risk factors for enema reduction failure and to establish a combined model that integrates deep learning (DL) features and clinical features for predicting surgical intervention in intussusception in children younger than 8 months of age.
designA retrospective study with a prospective validation cohort of intussusception. SETTING AND DATA: The retrospective data were collected from two hospitals in south east China between January 2017 and December 2022. The prospective data were collected between January 2023 and July 2024.
participantsA total of 415 intussusception cases in patients younger than 8 months were included in the study.
methods280 cases collected from Centre 1 were randomly divided into two groups at a 7:3 ratio: the training cohort (n=196) and the internal validation cohort (n=84). 85 cases collected from Centre 2 were designed as external validation cohort. Pretrained DL networks were used to extract deep transfer learning features, with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression selecting the non-zero coefficient features. The clinical features were screened by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. We constructed a combined model that integrated the selected two types of features, along with individual clinical and DL models for comparison. Additionally, the combined model was validated in a prospective cohort (n=50) collected from Centre 1.
resultsIn the internal and external validation cohorts, the combined model (area under curve (AUC): 0.911 and 0.871, respectively) demonstrated better performance for predicting surgical intervention in intussusception in children younger than 8 months of age than the clinical model (AUC: 0.776 and 0.740, respectively) and the DL model (AUC: 0.828 and 0.793, respectively). In the prospective validation cohort, the combined model also demonstrated impressive performance with an AUC of 0.890.
conclusionThe combined model, integrating DL and clinical features, demonstrated stable predictive accuracy, suggesting its potential for improving clinical therapeutic strategies for intussusception.
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.