ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
External validation of predictive models for diagnosis, management and severity of pediatric appendicitis.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Appendicitis is a common condition among children and adolescents. Machine learning models can offer much-needed tools for improved diagnosis, severity assessment and management guidance for pediatric appendicitis. However, to be adopted in practice, such systems must be reliable, safe and robust across various medical contexts, e.g., hospitals with distinct clinical practices and patient populations. Methods: We performed external validation of models predicting the diagnosis, management and severity of pediatric appendicitis. Trained on a cohort of 430 patients admitted to the Children's Hospital St. Hedwig (Regensburg, Germany), the models were validated on an independent cohort of 301 patients from the Florence-Nightingale-Hospital (Düsseldorf, Germany). The data included demographic, clinical, scoring, laboratory and ultrasound parameters. In addition, we explored the benefits of model retraining and inspected variable importance. Results: The distributions of most parameters differed between the datasets. Consequently, we saw a decrease in predictive performance for diagnosis, management and severity across most metrics. After retraining with a portion of external data, we observed gains in performance, which, nonetheless, remained lower than in the original study. Notably, the most important variables were consistent across the datasets. Conclusions: While the performance of transferred models was satisfactory, it remained lower than on the original data. This study demonstrates challenges in transferring models between hospitals, especially when clinical practice and demographics differ or in the presence of externalities such as pandemics. We also highlight the limitations of retraining as a potential remedy since it could not restore predictive performance to the initial level.
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.