New machine-learning models outperform conventional risk assessment tools in Gastrointestinal bleeding

Rapid and accurate identification of high-risk acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) patients is essential. We developed two machine-learning (ML) models to calculate the risk of in-hospital mortality in patients admitted due to overt GIB. We analyzed the prospective, multicenter Hungarian GIB Registry's data. The predictive performance of XGBoost and CatBoost machine-learning algorithms with the Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall and ABC scores were compared. We evaluated our models using five-fold cross-validation, and performance was measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Overall, we included 1,021 patients in the analysis. In-hospital death occurred in 108 cases. The XGBoost and the CatBoost model identified patients who died with an AUC of 0.84 (CI:0.76-0.90; 0.77-0.90; respectively) in the internal validation set, whereas the GBS and pre-endoscopic Rockall clinical scoring system's performance was significantly lower, AUC values of 0.68 (CI:0.62-0.74) and 0.62 (CI:0.56-0.67), respectively. ABC score had an AUC of 0.77 (CI:0.71-0.83). The XGBoost model had a specificity of 0.96 (CI:0.92-0.98) at a sensitivity of 0.25 (CI:0.10-0.43) compared with the CatBoost model, which had a specificity of 0.74 (CI:0.66-0.83) at a sensitivity of 0.78 (CI:0.57-0.95). XGBoost and the CatBoost models evaluate the mortality risk of acute GI bleeding better, than the conventional risk assessment tools.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2025-02-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90986-1
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
16.30

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

New machine-learning models outperform conventional risk assessment tools in Gastrointestinal bleeding

Brigitta Teutsch, Levente Frim, Nóra Vörhendi, Edina Tari et al.
9 citations
Scientific Reports
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
16.30
article

New machine-learning models outperform conventional risk assessment tools in Gastrointestinal bleeding

Brigitta Teutsch, Levente Frim, Nóra Vörhendi, Edina Tari, Áron Vincze, Dániel Pálinkás, Imre Szabó, Eszter Boros, Andrea Szentesi, Orsolya Anna Simon, Ferenc Izbéki, Endre Botond Gagyi, Péter Hegyi, Roland Hágendorn, Roland Molontay, Bálint Erőss, József Pintér, Vivien Vass, Zsolt Abonyi-Tóth, Kristóf Gergely Prószéky
article en
9 citations

Abstract

Rapid and accurate identification of high-risk acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) patients is essential. We developed two machine-learning (ML) models to calculate the risk of in-hospital mortality in patients admitted due to overt GIB. We analyzed the prospective, multicenter Hungarian GIB Registry's data. The predictive performance of XGBoost and CatBoost machine-learning algorithms with the Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS), pre-endoscopic Rockall and ABC scores were compared. We evaluated our models using five-fold cross-validation, and performance was measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Overall, we included 1,021 patients in the analysis. In-hospital death occurred in 108 cases. The XGBoost and the CatBoost model identified patients who died with an AUC of 0.84 (CI:0.76-0.90; 0.77-0.90; respectively) in the internal validation set, whereas the GBS and pre-endoscopic Rockall clinical scoring system's performance was significantly lower, AUC values of 0.68 (CI:0.62-0.74) and 0.62 (CI:0.56-0.67), respectively. ABC score had an AUC of 0.77 (CI:0.71-0.83). The XGBoost model had a specificity of 0.96 (CI:0.92-0.98) at a sensitivity of 0.25 (CI:0.10-0.43) compared with the CatBoost model, which had a specificity of 0.74 (CI:0.66-0.83) at a sensitivity of 0.78 (CI:0.57-0.95). XGBoost and the CatBoost models evaluate the mortality risk of acute GI bleeding better, than the conventional risk assessment tools.

Scientific ReportsVol. 15(1)
Semmelweis University (HU), Budapest University of Technology and Economics (HU), Fejér Megyei Szent György Egyetemi Oktató Kórház (HU), Uzsoki Hospital (HU), University of Veterinary Medicine (HU), University of Pecs (HU)
Pécsi Tudományegyetem
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
16.30
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.