Machine Learning and Feature Selection in Pediatric Appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Accurate prediction of pediatric appendicitis diagnosis, management, and severity is critical for clinical decision-making. We aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of a wide range of machine learning models, combined with various feature selection techniques, on a pediatric appendicitis dataset. A particular focus was placed on the role of ultrasound (US) image-descriptive features in model performance and explainability. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on a dataset of 781 pediatric patients aged 0-18 presenting to Children's Hospital St. Hedwig in Regensburg, Germany, between January 2016 and February 2023. We developed and validated predictive models; machine learning algorithms included the random forest, logistic regression, stochastic gradient descent, and the light gradient boosting machine (LGBM). These were paired exhaustively with feature selection methods spanning filter-based (association and prediction), embedded (LGBM and linear), and a novel redundancy-aware step-up wrapper approach. We employed a machine learning benchmarking study design where AI models were trained to predict diagnosis, management, and severity outcomes, both with and without US image-descriptive features, and evaluated on held-out testing samples. Model performance was assessed using overall accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). A deep learner optimized for tabular data, GANDALF, was also evaluated in these applications. RESULTS: US features significantly improved diagnostic accuracy, supporting their use in reducing model bias. However, they were not essential for maximizing accuracy in predicting management or severity. In summary, our best-performing models were, for diagnosis, the random forest with embedded LGBM feature selection (98.1% accuracy, AUROC: 0.993), for management, the random forest without feature selection (93.9% accuracy, AUROC: 0.980), and for severity, the LGBM with filter-based association feature selection (90.1% accuracy, AUROC: 0.931). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that high-performing, interpretable machine learning models can predict key clinical outcomes in pediatric appendicitis. US image features improve diagnostic accuracy but are not critical for predicting management or severity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".