ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Radiomics analysis based on MRCP for predicting post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with common bile duct stones.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLimited evidence exists on the predictive value of preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) features of common bile duct stones (CBDS) for identifying post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP).
methodsRadiomics texture analysis was performed using 3D Slicer software (version 5.0.3) and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration plots.
resultsA total of 1690 patients who underwent ERCP at our center were enrolled, among whom 134 (7.93%) developed PEP. In the training cohort, the complex model, combining radiomics and clinical factors, exhibited optimal predictive value. It achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.863 (95% CI: 0.825-0.901), a sensitivity of 0.847 (95% CI: 0.757-0.909), and a specificity of 0.743 (95% CI: 0.688-0.792). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.296 and 0.206, respectively. In contrast, the radiomics model showed moderate performance (AUC, 0.813, 95%CI: 0.767-0.859), while the clinical risk model performed the lowest performance (AUC,0.736, 95%CI: 0.678-0.794). Similarly, in the testing cohort, the complex model outperformed both the radiomics model and the clinical risk model. DeLong's test highlighted significant differences among the three models. Furthermore, decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curves indicated that both the complex model and the radiomics model surpassed the clinical risk model in terms of clinical applicability and value.
conclusionThe radiomic features of CBDS are significant independent predictors of PEP. The model incorporating these radiomics features demonstrates strong performance for the clinical prediction of PEP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41491911What 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.