Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41398645›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025

Development of a prediction model for peptic ulcer disease using the fusion of a feature selection strategy and ensemble algorithms.

Raoof Nopour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Raoof NopourDepartment of Health Information Management, Student Research Committee, School of Health Management and Information Sciences Branch, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. nopour.r70@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3770-2375

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeptic ulcer disease is a prevalent gastric and duodenal disorder associated with H. pylori infection, which is related to numerous complications and diseases. Early prediction of this disease plays a significant role in reducing and eliminating its complications. So far, machine learning has shown promise for efficiently predicting health conditions in healthcare settings. So, this study aimed to establish a prediction model by getting assistance from machine learning and risk factors for peptic ulcer disease to predict this disease efficiently and achieve preventive purposes.

methodsThis retrospective study was conducted from January 2018 to December 2023 and included 1803 individuals with suspected peptic ulcer disease. We used selected ensemble algorithms, including XG-Boost, Random Forest, Ada-Boost, LightGBM, and Cat-Boost, to build prediction models and choose the best-performing ones.

resultsXG-Boost with an AU-ROC of 0.936 and a 95% CI of AU-ROC = [0.909–0.956] obtained more predictive strength than others. Factors of the history of H. pylori, NSAIDs, family history of gastric ulcer, smoking, and fruit intake were considered the top-ranked risk factors for peptic ulcer disease.

conclusionsThis study revealed that XG-Boost, with satisfactory performance and clinical usability, can potentially identify high-risk individuals for peptic ulcer disease in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Machine LearningPeptic UlcerAdultAlgorithmsBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsFemaleHelicobacter InfectionsHelicobacter pyloriHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsRandom ForestRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsComplicationEarly predictionHelicobacter pylori infectionMachine learningPeptic ulcer disease

Identifiers

PMID41398645
PMCPMC12706956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.