Observational studyBMC gastroenterology2025
Predictive model for early fluid requirement in severe acute pancreatitis.
Observational study in BMC gastroenterology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere acute pancreatitis (SAP) involves significant fluid loss, necessitating precise fluid therapy. However, standardized protocols are lacking. This study aimed to develop a machine learning-based prediction model for fluid requirement in SAP patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study of SAP patients admitted to Peking University Third Hospital (2016–2020) within 48 h of onset. Fluid requirement was quantified by 48-hour rehydration volume. Using the Lasso algorithm, we screened predictive variables and trained five models: Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), LightGBM, CatBoost, and multiple linear regression. Model performance was evaluated via mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), R2, and fitting curves. The soft voting method was used to fuse the above five prediction models to improve the performance of the model. The optimal model was interpreted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). To illustrate potential clinical use, ten randomly selected cases from the test set are presented.
resultsAmong 308 included patients, 90% were allocated to the training set. Sixteen key variables were selected for prediction. Among the five machine learning algorithms used to build prediction models, the MAE and RMSE values of the XGBoost algorithm were the smallest and the R2 value was the closest to 1, which indicated that XGBoost was the best-performing model in our study. After model fusion, the model performance was further improved. SHAP analysis of the optimal model, XGBoost, revealed the relative importance of each predictor. To illustrate the model’s practical application, we present the predictions for 10 randomly selected test-set cases. The differences between the predicted and actual fluid volumes in these individual cases ranged from 31.07 to 329.80 mL, serving as concrete examples of how the model could be used at the bedside.
conclusionIn this study, we developed the Fluid Requirement Predicting Model for SAP (FRPM-SAP), which can predict the specific amount of fluid loss in SAP patients. The predictive performance was good, demonstrating that the model has practical application for guiding clinicians in their assessment of 48-hour rehydration volume.
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.