ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Machine learning-based prediction of recurrent extrahepatic bile duct stones after common bile duct exploration: a comparative study of models and SHAP-driven interpretability analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to construct and compare machine learning models for predicting recurrent extrahepatic bile duct stones after common bile duct exploration and to clarify the contribution of key risk factors using SHAP analysis, thereby providing a reliable tool for clinical risk assessment and intervention. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 1,363 patients (2010-2024, Huangshi Central Hospital/Honghu People's Hospital) with extrahepatic bile duct stones (156 recurrent cases). LASSO regression selected 8 predictors; 9 machine learning models were built, evaluated by AUC, accuracy, etc., and SHAP interpreted the optimal model. Results: Random Forest (RF) performed best: training/validation/external cohort AUC 97.99%/93.66%/83.1%, accuracy 0.953/0.902/0.829. SHAP identified maximum stone diameter, common bile duct diameter, and direct bilirubin as top risks, with nonlinearity (stones >15 mm elevated risk) and synergistic interactions. Conclusion: Random Forest (RF) is confirmed as the most reliable tool for predicting recurrent extrahepatic bile duct stones post-common bile duct exploration, outperforming other models in generalization. SHAP analysis clarifies that max stone diameter, CBD diameter, and direct bilirubin (with nonlinear effects like stones >15 mm elevating risk) are key synergistic risks. This study enables personalized clinical risk assessment and targeted interventions to reduce postoperative recurrence.
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.