ArticleScientific reports2026
Machine learning model for predicting rebleeding risk after endoscopic variceal ligation in esophageal variceal bleeding.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rebleeding is a severe complication following recovery from esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB), yet robust predictive tools for assessing post-treatment risk after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) therapy remain scarce. This study developed and independently validated a machine learning (ML) model using multidimensional clinical data to predict 1-year rebleeding risk. Two independent cohorts were included: a retrospective cohort (n = 373) for model development and a prospective cohort (n = 119) for validation, with a one-year rebleeding endpoint. Predictors were identified using Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE), and eight ML algorithms were evaluated. Each algorithm was optimized via 5-fold cross-validation. The model with optimal performance was chosen to develop an online computational platform. RFE identified eight key predictors. The XGBoost model demonstrated superior predictive performance in both the training and validation cohorts, achieving AUCs of 0.883 and 0.887, respectively. This model was subsequently implemented in an online clinical platform for individualized 1-year rebleeding risk assessment. Our findings establish XGBoost as an effective tool for predicting EVB rebleeding risk, providing an evidence-based decision aid for post-EVL management.
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.