ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Machine Learning Models for Predicting Response to Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage in Malignant Obstructive Jaundice: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPercutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is a standard palliative intervention for malignant obstructive jaundice, yet 60-75% of patients fail to achieve a clinically meaningful biochemical response. Pre-procedural identification of responders has direct implications for patient selection and shared decision-making. We developed and validated machine learning (ML) models to predict biochemical response to PTBD using pre-procedure clinical and laboratory variables.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 243 patients with malignant obstructive jaundice who underwent PTBD at a tertiary care referral center. Response was defined as ≥ 50% reduction in serum total bilirubin at two weeks post-procedure. Twenty-six pre-procedural features - including demographics, liver biochemistry, renal function, haematological indices, and clinical severity scores - were evaluated. Five ML algorithms (Logistic Regression, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, LightGBM, and stacking ensembles) were trained with synthetic minority oversampling (SMOTE variants) to address class imbalance. Performance was evaluated by stratified 5-fold cross-validation and a held-out test set (20%).
resultsResponse occurred in 63 of 243 patients (25.9%). The best-performing model (Logistic Regression with L1 regularisation, SMOTE oversampling) achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.714 (95% CI 0.529-0.870) on the held-out test set, with sensitivity 76.9% and specificity 61.1%. Tree-based models demonstrated severe cross-validation overfitting to synthetic samples (CV AUC 0.83-0.92) with substantial test-set degradation (AUC 0.58-0.70), a finding attributable to SMOTE-induced distribution shift in small, imbalanced datasets. There was no statistically significant AUC difference between logistic regression and tree-based models. Calibration assessment revealed overconfident predictions (Brier score 0.24, calibration slope 0.46). SHAP analysis identified prothrombin time index, ascites, creatinine, cancer type, and cholangitis severity as the most influential predictors.
conclusionsPre-procedural ML-based prediction of PTBD response is feasible with a modest AUC. Logistic regression generalises most reliably in this small, class-imbalanced dataset. External validation in larger prospective cohorts is required before clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42696113What 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.