ArticlePediatric surgery international2025
Development and validation of a screening model for early diagnosis of biliary atresia in neonates with cholestasis.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiliary atresia (BA) is a progressive neonatal cholestatic liver disease that requires timely diagnosis and intervention. Differentiating BA from other causes of neonatal cholestasis remains a significant clinical challenge.
methodsIn this study, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical and biochemical data of 243 cholestatic neonates, comprising 61 with BA and 182 with non-BA. We utilized five supervised machine learning algorithms-logistic regression (LRM), decision tree (DET), multilayer perceptron (MLP), support vector machine (SVC), and random forest (RF)-to construct diagnostic models for BA. The performance of each model was evaluated based on its accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). We then developed an online diagnostic tool based on the best-performing model.
resultsThe BA and non-BA groups showed significant differences across multiple biochemical markers. All five models demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with the random forest (RF) model achieving the best results (AUC = 0.93, sensitivity = 88.5%, specificity = 85.2%). The combination of multiple biochemical parameters substantially improved diagnostic accuracy compared to using single indicators. The web-based tool provides an intuitive and user-friendly interface to support early BA screening in clinical practice.
conclusionMachine learning-based models, particularly the RF model, show great potential for the early diagnosis of BA in cholestatic neonates. The implementation of a dedicated online platform may facilitate timely identification and assist clinicians in decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41420648What 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.