ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Machine learning models to predict the recurrence of common bile duct stones after ERCP.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo construct predictive models for the recurrence of common bile duct stones (CBDS) following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed data from 1,130 patients who were randomly divided into a training set (70%) and a test set (30%). Feature selection was performed using the boruta algorithm and multivariable logistic regression (LR), followed by addressing data imbalance through the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE). Predictive models were developed utilizing random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and LR. We optimized these models through random search and ten-fold cross-validation to identify the best parameters. After model development, we compared their area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, recall, precision, F1-score, and decision curve analysis (DCA) to select the most optimal model. Ultimately, the optimal model was interpreted using shapley additive explanations (SHAP).
resultsEight risk factors were identified and used to construct the predictive model, including clinical course, stone diameter, presence of multiple stones, use of biliary stents, alcohol consumption, history of biliary tract operations, presence of CBD stenosis, and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation. The RF model outperformed XGBoost and LR in terms of AUC, accuracy, recall, precision, F1-score, and DCA. The SHAP summary plot, waterfall plot, and force plot provided both overall and local explanations of the RF model.
conclusionThis study successfully identifies high-risk individuals for recurrent CBDS post-ERCP and offers valuable insights for machine learning-assisted clinical decision-making.
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.