ArticleAnnals of medicine2026
Predicting gallstones risk with body composition analysis and machine learning: a dual-center cohort study.
Article in Annals of medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the predictive performance of computed tomography (CT) body composition indices, anthropometric indices, and laboratory indices for gallstones occurrence, and to construct machine-learning models to improve performance.
methodsThe dual-center retrospective cohort enrolled patients who underwent initial abdominal CT between January 2017 and January 2023, had no gallstones detected, and completed at least 3 years of follow-up. The data analysis was performed in April 2026. They were divided into gallstone group and non‑gallstone group by follow‑up findings. A deep-learning tool, Body and Organ Analysis (BOA), was used to quantify fat, muscle, and bone at the level of the third lumbar vertebra. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of these indices was compared with that of anthropometric and laboratory indices. Predictive models were developed in the training cohort. Model performance was evaluated using fivefold cross-validation and an independent test cohort.
results1,944 patients were evaluated, including 1,437 in the training cohort (Center 1; median age, 63 years [25th-75th percentile, 55-72]; 699 males) and 507 in the test cohort (Center 2; median age, 63 years [55-71]; 266 males). In univariate analysis, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) showed the highest AUC (0.627, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.586-0.668). The extreme trees (ET) model performed best, with a test-set AUC of 0.772 (95% CI: 0.714-0.822). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis identified the area ratio of subcutaneous to total fat as the most important feature.
conclusionsNLR was the best single predictor but had limited standalone utility. Among models integrating the three indicator categories, the ET performed best.
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.