ArticleBMC surgery2026
Machine learning for prognostic assessment in elderly patients with gastroduodenal perforation.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElderly gastroduodenal perforation (E-GDP) is prone to severe adverse effects (SAEs) and high mortality rates. This study aims to develop an intelligent prognostic assessment system for the comprehensive evaluation of E-GDP.
methodsThis study included a development cohort of 108 patients with E-GDP and an independent validation cohort of 30 patients. Patients’ clinical features, laboratory findings, and postoperative complications were retrospectively collected. Patients were categorized into superior prognosis group(SG) and inferior prognosis group(IG) using two-step clustering (TSC). Machine learning models predicted E-GDP prognosis, interpreted via SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis, and were validated at an external center.
resultsAfter TSC, patients were divided into two groups: the SG (76 patients) and the IG (32 patients). TSC better distinguished hospital days than SAE grade (p < 0.001 vs. p = 0.01). Compared with the SG, the IG had greater postoperative white blood cell counts (10.61 ± 4.82 vs. 8.01 ± 2.41, p = 0.006), intra-abdominal infections (94% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), anastomotic leakage (44% vs. 0%, p < 0.001), fluid time (8.01 ± 3.41 vs. 6.05 ± 2.12, p = 0.004), length of intensive care unit stay (114.20 ± 188.35 vs. 18.07 ± 48.55, p = 0.008), and costs (92180.79 ± 70920.55 vs. 38416.18 ± 20479.48, p < 0.001). The support vector machine (SVM) had the best performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 (0.77, 0.99) and 0.77 (0.61, 0.92) in the external validation set(30 patients).
conclusionWe developed a robust SVM-based machine learning model using the TSC assessment system to preoperatively predict the prognosis of E-GDP patients.
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.