ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Development and validation of gallstone disease risk factor identification model: a cross-sectional study in Western China.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
Background: Gallstone disease poses a growing public health concern worldwide, yet approaches for its identification remain unclear. Objective: This study aimed to establish a risk factor identification model by identifying risk factors for gallstone disease, thereby providing evidence-based support for disease prevention. Methods: Health examination data and questionnaire data were analyzed. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using t-test or chi-square test. LASSO regression with 10-fold cross-validation was used for variable selection. Logistic regression and random forest models were constructed in parallel. Data were randomly split into training and validation sets (7:3), and 10-fold cross-validation assessed model stability in training set. Model discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility were evaluated using the AUC, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: Among the 17,768 subjects, 1,673 comprised the gallstone case group and 16,095 the control group. A random forest model was constructed and demonstrated superior performance to logistic regression, with an AUC of 0.747 (95% CI: 0.724-0.771), specificity of 0.91, sensitivity of 0.86, Brier score of 0.073 and F1 score of 63.41%. Calibration curves showed good consistency between predicted and observed probabilities. DCA confirmed that the random forest model provided higher net benefit across a wide range of clinically relevant thresholds compared with treat-all or treat-none strategies. Conclusion: The random forest model demonstrated moderate discriminatory ability and clinical relevance for gallstone disease. Confirmed risk factors include TBA, smoking, diabetes, TG, TP, passive smoking, tea consumption, nutrient intake exercise, etc. Identification and intervention targeting these factors may help reduce the incidence of gallstone disease. But as a cross-sectional study, future prospective cohort studies are needed for external validation to establish a robust prediction model.
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.