ArticleJournal of inflammation research2026
An Integrated Risk Prediction Model for Gout Using Clinical Data, Ultrasound Features, and Deep Learning: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.
Article in Journal of inflammation research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and validate a combined model for predicting gout risk by integrating ultrasound (US) features as novel risk factors with clinical data and predictions from deep learning (DL) models. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study included 609 cases who underwent first metatarsophalangeal (MTP1) joint US at two centers. Data from Center 1 were divided into a training group (70%, n = 355) and an internal testing cohort (ITC) (30%, n = 162). Data from Center 2 served as an external testing cohort (ETC) (n = 92). A DL diagnostic model based on MTP1 US images was developed to obtain diagnostic predictions. Clinical data, US features, and DL predictions were integrated, and logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors. Various models were constructed (clinical, US, clinical-US, clinical-DL, and combined), and the best model was interpreted with a nomogram. Multicollinearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor. Model performance was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: The combined model, incorporating clinical data (gender, serum uric acid [SUA]), US features (tophus, double contour sign (DCs), bone erosion), and DL predictions, exhibited the best performance. For the ITC, the area under the curve (AUC) and Brier scores were 0.904 (95% CI: 0.843~0.965) and 0.100 (0.066~0.140), respectively. For the ETC, they were 0.881 (95% CI: 0.815~0.947) and 0.160 (0.107~0.221). DCA confirmed the clinical utility of the combined nomogram. Conclusion: A nomogram was constructed based on seven risk predictors (gender, SUA, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), tophus, bone erosion, DCs, and DL prediction) to predict and quantify gout risk.
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.