ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Development and validation of a prognostic model for cirrhotic patients after endoscopic variceal ligation.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a machine learning model incorporating liver function, variceal characteristics, and hemodynamic parameters for individualized prediction of prognosis in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), thereby providing a reference for clinical outcome assessment and treatment decision-making.
methodsCirrhotic patients who underwent EVL between January 2022 and December 2024 were retrospectively enrolled and randomly divided into a training set and a validation set at a 7:3 ratio. In the training set, univariate analysis, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify independent predictors. Key predictive variables were used to construct machine learning models (random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and k-nearest neighbors (KNN)). Model performance was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis, with the optimal model selected. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method was employed to assess model interpretability, analyzing the direction and magnitude of variable contributions to predictions.
resultsA total of 342 patients were retrospectively enrolled and randomly divided into a training set (n = 239) and a validation set (n = 103). Baseline clinical characteristics showed no significant differences between the training and validation sets (all P > 0.05). In the training set, multivariate logistic regression showed that Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, total bilirubin, maximum variceal diameter, and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) were independent risk factors for poor prognosis (all P < 0.05), whereas serum albumin, platelet count, and hemoglobin at admission were protective factors (all P < 0.05). Among machine learning models, the SVM model demonstrated superior predictive performance, with an AUC of 0.859 in the training set and 0.797 in the validation set, outperforming RF and KNN models. SHAP interpretability analysis confirmed that MELD score, HVPG, and total bilirubin contributed most strongly to increased risk, while serum albumin, platelet count, and hemoglobin at admission exerted protective effects.
conclusionThis study successfully developed and validated a predictive model incorporating MELD score, variceal diameter, and HVPG. The model accurately predicts survival in cirrhotic patients after EVL, serving as a practical tool for individualized prognostic assessment.
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.