{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T20:59:38Z","timestamp":1781643578008,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":45,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,25]],"date-time":"2026-03-25T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1774396800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,4]],"date-time":"2026-05-04T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1777852800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":40,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"Analysis of High-Risk Factors for Pancreatitis after ERCP stone removal for Common Bile Duct Stones","award":["LRYFQ202507"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["LRYFQ202507"]}]},{"name":"Analysis of High-Risk Factors for Pancreatitis after ERCP stone removal for Common Bile Duct Stones","award":["LRYFQ202507"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["LRYFQ202507"]}]},{"name":"Analysis of High-Risk Factors for Pancreatitis after ERCP stone removal for Common Bile Duct Stones","award":["LRYFQ202507"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["LRYFQ202507"]}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMC Gastroenterol"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Introduction<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) remains the most common serious complication of ERCP, with variable incidence across patient populations. Choledocholithiasis patients represent a distinct subgroup with unique risk profiles, yet existing prediction models lack indication-specific validation. We aimed to develop and internally validate a practical risk score for predicting PEP in patients undergoing ERCP for choledocholithiasis.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methodology<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This single-center retrospective cohort study included 500 consecutive patients who underwent therapeutic ERCP for choledocholithiasis at Liuzhou People\u2019s Hospital between January 2019 and December 2024. PEP was defined according to Cotton consensus criteria. Candidate predictors were selected based on literature review and clinical availability. Multivariable logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regularization was employed for variable selection. The final model was internally validated using 500 bootstrap iterations with optimism correction. Model performance was assessed through discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration slope, Hosmer-Lemeshow test), and overall fit (Brier score). A simplified integer-based risk score was developed for clinical application.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      PEP occurred in 76 patients (15.20%), with mild, moderate, and severe cases representing 72.37%, 23.68%, and 3.95% of events, respectively. Five independent predictors were retained in the final model: prior post-ERCP pancreatitis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.92\u201310.03), asymptomatic choledocholithiasis presentation (aOR 6.57, 95% CI 3.52\u201312.25), difficult cannulation (aOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.43\u20134.39), pancreatic duct instrumentation (aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.12\u20133.33), and precut sphincterotomy (aOR 3.43, 95% CI 1.66\u20137.08). The model demonstrated acceptable discrimination with an optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0.760 (95% CI 0.708\u20130.817) after bootstrap internal validation. Calibration was satisfactory (Hosmer-Lemeshow\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.967; calibration slope 0.939). The derived risk score stratified patients into low (0\u20131 points; 6.92% PEP rate), moderate (2\u20133 points; 21.85% PEP rate), and high-risk (\u2265\u20094 points; 44.44% PEP rate) categories.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>We developed and internally validated a parsimonious, choledocholithiasis-specific risk score demonstrating robust discrimination and calibration for PEP prediction. This practical tool enables individualized risk stratification in patients undergoing ERCP for common bile duct stones. The clinical utility of risk-stratified prophylaxis requires evaluation through external validation studies and prospective trials assessing patient outcomes before clinical implementation can be recommended.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s12876-026-04708-6","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,25]],"date-time":"2026-03-25T03:04:12Z","timestamp":1774407852000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Development and validation of a novel risk score for predicting post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with choledocholithiasis: a retrospective study"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"26","author":[{"given":"Peng","family":"Cong","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Zhen","family":"Liu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Min","family":"Wei","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,25]]},"reference":[{"issue":"2","key":"4708_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"127","DOI":"10.1055\/a-1075-4080","volume":"52","author":"JM Dumonceau","year":"2020","unstructured":"Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L, Papanikolaou IS, Tringali A, Vanbiervliet G, Beyna T, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Hritz I, Mariani A, et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2020;52(2):127\u201349.","journal-title":"Endoscopy"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.gie.2023.03.023","volume":"98","author":"VS Akshintala","year":"2023","unstructured":"Akshintala VS, Kanthasamy K, Bhullar FA, Sperna Weiland CJ, Kamal A, Kochar B, Gurakar M, Ngamruengphong S, Kumbhari V, Brewer-Gutierrez OI, et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 145 randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2023;98(1):1\u20136. e12.","journal-title":"Gastrointest Endosc"},{"issue":"5","key":"4708_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1880","DOI":"10.1007\/s10620-024-08374-0","volume":"69","author":"I Obaitan","year":"2024","unstructured":"Obaitan I, Mohamed MFH, Beran A, Rosenheck M, Obomanu ET, Berzin TM, Ramai D, Wehbe H, Aziz M, Mahendraker N, et al. Comparative Risks of Post-ERCP Adverse Events in Patients with Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Choledocholithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2024;69(5):1880\u20138.","journal-title":"Dig Dis Sci"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"143","DOI":"10.1186\/s12911-024-02541-z","volume":"24","author":"C Yan","year":"2024","unstructured":"Yan C, Zheng J, Tang H, Fang C, Zhu J, Feng H, Huang H, Su Y, Wang G, Wang C. Prediction for post-ERCP pancreatitis in non-elderly patients with common bile duct stones: a cross-sectional study at a major Chinese tertiary hospital (2015\u20132023). BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2024;24(1):143.","journal-title":"BMC Med Inf Decis Mak"},{"issue":"9","key":"4708_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"799","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0034-1377875","volume":"46","author":"JM Dumonceau","year":"2014","unstructured":"Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Elmunzer BJ, Mariani A, Meister T, Deviere J, Marek T, Baron TH, Hassan C, Testoni PA, et al. Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - updated June 2014. Endoscopy. 2014;46(9):799\u2013815.","journal-title":"Endoscopy"},{"issue":"2","key":"4708_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"327","DOI":"10.1111\/jgh.15704","volume":"37","author":"H Saito","year":"2022","unstructured":"Saito H, Kadono Y, Shono T, Kamikawa K, Urata A, Nasu J, Imamura H, Matsushita I, Kakuma T, Tada S. Increased post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis for choledocholithiasis without acute cholangitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;37(2):327\u201334.","journal-title":"J Gastroenterol Hepatol"},{"issue":"11","key":"4708_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1905","DOI":"10.1016\/j.cgh.2024.11.014","volume":"23","author":"A Beran","year":"2025","unstructured":"Beran A, Aboursheid T, Ali AH, Nayfeh T, Albunni H, Vargas A, Mohamed MF, Elfert K, Shaear M, Obaitan I, et al. Predictors of Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025;23(11):1905\u201316.","journal-title":"Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol"},{"issue":"4","key":"4708_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"361","DOI":"10.1002\/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4","volume":"15","author":"FE Harrell Jr","year":"1996","unstructured":"Harrell FE Jr., Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15(4):361\u201387.","journal-title":"Stat Med"},{"issue":"9","key":"4708_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0332378","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0332378","volume":"20","author":"Y Mao","year":"2025","unstructured":"Mao Y, Liu Q, Fan H, He W, Zhang C, Ouyang X, Li E, Wang X, Qiu L, Dong H. Risk prediction model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2025;20(9):e0332378.","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"issue":"12","key":"4708_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4476","DOI":"10.1007\/s10620-024-08693-2","volume":"69","author":"CJ Sperna Weiland","year":"2024","unstructured":"Sperna Weiland CJ, Akshintala VS, Singh A, Buxbaum J, Choi JH, Elmunzer BJ, Fogel ES, Lai JH, Levenick JM, Gardner TB, et al. Preventive Measures and Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2024;69(12):4476\u201388.","journal-title":"Dig Dis Sci"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"62","DOI":"10.1186\/s12893-023-01953-4","volume":"23","author":"JY Chi","year":"2023","unstructured":"Chi JY, Ma LY, Zou JC, Ma YF. Risk factors of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with biliary tract diseases. BMC Surg. 2023;23(1):62.","journal-title":"BMC Surg"},{"issue":"9","key":"4708_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1078","DOI":"10.1002\/jgh3.12634","volume":"5","author":"K Fujita","year":"2021","unstructured":"Fujita K, Yazumi S, Uza N, Kurita A, Asada M, Kodama Y, Goto M, Katayama T, Anami T, Watanabe A, et al. New practical scoring system to predict post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Development and validation. JGH Open. 2021;5(9):1078\u201384.","journal-title":"JGH Open"},{"issue":"2","key":"4708_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"153","DOI":"10.1016\/j.gie.2022.10.005","volume":"97","author":"JL Buxbaum","year":"2023","unstructured":"Buxbaum JL, Freeman M, Amateau SK, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Desai M, Elhanafi SE, Forbes N, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention strategies: summary and recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc. 2023;97(2):153\u201362.","journal-title":"Gastrointest Endosc"},{"issue":"10425","key":"4708_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"450","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(23)02356-5","volume":"403","author":"BJ Elmunzer","year":"2024","unstructured":"Elmunzer BJ, Foster LD, Serrano J, Cote GA, Edmundowicz SA, Wani S, Shah R, Bang JY, Varadarajulu S, Singh VK, et al. Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2024;403(10425):450\u20138.","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"issue":"5","key":"4708_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"350","DOI":"10.1016\/S2468-1253(21)00057-1","volume":"6","author":"CJ Sperna Weiland","year":"2021","unstructured":"Sperna Weiland CJ, Smeets X, Kievit W, Verdonk RC, Poen AC, Bhalla A, Venneman NG, Witteman BJM, da Costa DW, van Eijck BC, et al. Aggressive fluid hydration plus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (FLUYT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;6(5):350\u20138.","journal-title":"Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol"},{"key":"4708_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"g7594","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.g7594","volume":"350","author":"GS Collins","year":"2015","unstructured":"Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ. 2015;350:g7594.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"W1","DOI":"10.7326\/M14-0698","volume":"162","author":"KG Moons","year":"2015","unstructured":"Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Ransohoff DF, Collins GS. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1\u201373.","journal-title":"Ann Intern Med"},{"issue":"4","key":"4708_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"344","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008","volume":"61","author":"E von Elm","year":"2008","unstructured":"von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344\u20139.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"issue":"3","key":"4708_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"383","DOI":"10.1016\/S0016-5107(91)70740-2","volume":"37","author":"PB Cotton","year":"1991","unstructured":"Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37(3):383\u201393.","journal-title":"Gastrointest Endosc"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"102","DOI":"10.1136\/gutjnl-2012-302779","volume":"62","author":"PA Banks","year":"2013","unstructured":"Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, Johnson CD, Sarr MG, Tsiotos GG, Vege SS. Acute Pancreatitis Classification Working G: Classification of acute pancreatitis\u20132012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut. 2013;62(1):102\u201311.","journal-title":"Gut"},{"issue":"4","key":"4708_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"557","DOI":"10.1177\/2050640619834839","volume":"7","author":"X Smeets","year":"2019","unstructured":"Smeets X, Bouhouch N, Buxbaum J, Zhang H, Cho J, Verdonk RC, Romkens T, Venneman NG, Kats I, Vrolijk JM, et al. The revised Atlanta criteria more accurately reflect severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to the consensus criteria. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2019;7(4):557\u201364.","journal-title":"United Eur Gastroenterol J"},{"key":"4708_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"m441","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.m441","volume":"368","author":"RD Riley","year":"2020","unstructured":"Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, Harrell FE Jr., Martin GP, Reitsma JB, Moons KGM, Collins G, van Smeden M. Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ. 2020;368:m441.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"7","key":"4708_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1276","DOI":"10.1002\/sim.7992","volume":"38","author":"RD Riley","year":"2019","unstructured":"Riley RD, Snell KI, Ensor J, Burke DL, Harrell FE Jr., Moons KG, Collins GS. Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model: PART II - binary and time-to-event outcomes. Stat Med. 2019;38(7):1276\u201396.","journal-title":"Stat Med"},{"key":"4708_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"116","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2288-14-116","volume":"14","author":"JZ Musoro","year":"2014","unstructured":"Musoro JZ, Zwinderman AH, Puhan MA, ter Riet G, Geskus RB. Validation of prediction models based on lasso regression with multiply imputed data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:116.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-020-01201-w","volume":"21","author":"K Iba","year":"2021","unstructured":"Iba K, Shinozaki T, Maruo K, Noma H. Re-evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of bootstrap-based optimism correction methods in the development of multivariable clinical prediction models. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):9.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"issue":"8","key":"4708_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"774","DOI":"10.1016\/S0895-4356(01)00341-9","volume":"54","author":"EW Steyerberg","year":"2001","unstructured":"Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr., Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(8):774\u201381.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"128","DOI":"10.1097\/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2","volume":"21","author":"EW Steyerberg","year":"2010","unstructured":"Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, Pencina MJ, Kattan MW. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128\u201338.","journal-title":"Epidemiology"},{"issue":"10","key":"4708_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1063","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2015.11082","volume":"314","author":"MJ Pencina","year":"2015","unstructured":"Pencina MJ, D\u2019Agostino RB, Sr. Evaluating Discrimination of Risk Prediction Models: The C Statistic. JAMA. 2015;314(10):1063\u20134.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"230","DOI":"10.1186\/s12916-019-1466-7","volume":"17","author":"B Van Calster","year":"2019","unstructured":"Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW. Topic Group \u2018Evaluating diagnostic t, prediction models\u2019 of the Si: Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):230.","journal-title":"BMC Med"},{"key":"4708_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"167","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2015.12.005","volume":"74","author":"B Van Calster","year":"2016","unstructured":"Van Calster B, Nieboer D, Vergouwe Y, De Cock B, Pencina MJ, Steyerberg EW. A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:167\u201376.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"issue":"9","key":"4708_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"965","DOI":"10.1002\/(SICI)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<965::AID-SIM509>3.0.CO;2-O","volume":"16","author":"DW Hosmer","year":"1997","unstructured":"Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, Lemeshow S. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med. 1997;16(9):965\u201380.","journal-title":"Stat Med"},{"key":"4708_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Lemeshow DWH Jr, Sturdivant S. RX: Applied Logistic Regression, 3rd Edition. 2013.","DOI":"10.1002\/9781118445112.stat06902"},{"key":"4708_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"19","DOI":"10.1186\/s41512-017-0020-3","volume":"1","author":"M Assel","year":"2017","unstructured":"Assel M, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ. The Brier score does not evaluate the clinical utility of diagnostic tests or prediction models. Diagn Progn Res. 2017;1:19.","journal-title":"Diagn Progn Res"},{"issue":"10","key":"4708_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1631","DOI":"10.1002\/sim.1742","volume":"23","author":"LM Sullivan","year":"2004","unstructured":"Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, D\u2019Agostino RB, Sr. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med. 2004;23(10):1631\u201360.","journal-title":"Stat Med"},{"issue":"22","key":"4708_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4056","DOI":"10.1002\/sim.6994","volume":"35","author":"PC Austin","year":"2016","unstructured":"Austin PC, Lee DS, D\u2019Agostino RB, Fine JP. Developing points-based risk-scoring systems in the presence of competing risks. Stat Med. 2016;35(22):4056\u201372.","journal-title":"Stat Med"},{"issue":"4","key":"4708_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"463","DOI":"10.1111\/den.14622","volume":"36","author":"H Takahashi","year":"2024","unstructured":"Takahashi H, Ohno E, Furukawa T, Yamao K, Ishikawa T, Mizutani Y, Iida T, Shiratori Y, Oyama S, Koyama J, et al. Artificial intelligence in a prediction model for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Dig Endosc. 2024;36(4):463\u201372.","journal-title":"Dig Endosc"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"129","DOI":"10.1016\/j.gie.2024.08.009","volume":"101","author":"T Brenner","year":"2025","unstructured":"Brenner T, Kuo A, Sperna Weiland CJ, Kamal A, Elmunzer BJ, Luo H, Buxbaum J, Gardner TB, Mok SS, Fogel ES, et al. Development and validation of a machine learning-based, point-of-care risk calculator for post-ERCP pancreatitis and prophylaxis selection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2025;101(1):129\u201338. e120.","journal-title":"Gastrointest Endosc"},{"key":"4708_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Lee TC, Shah NU, Haack A, Baxter SL. Clinical Implementation of Predictive Models Embedded within Electronic Health Record Systems: A Systematic Review. Inf (MDPI). 2020;7(3):25. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/informatics7030025.","DOI":"10.3390\/informatics7030025"},{"issue":"9","key":"4708_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3134","DOI":"10.1007\/s10620-024-08565-9","volume":"69","author":"J Zuo","year":"2024","unstructured":"Zuo J, Li H, Zhang S, Li P. Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for the Prevention of Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci. 2024;69(9):3134\u201346.","journal-title":"Dig Dis Sci"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"W1","DOI":"10.7326\/M18-1377","volume":"170","author":"KGM Moons","year":"2019","unstructured":"Moons KGM, Wolff RF, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Kleijnen J, Mallett S. PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):W1\u201333.","journal-title":"Ann Intern Med"},{"key":"4708_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e078378","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj-2023-078378","volume":"385","author":"GS Collins","year":"2024","unstructured":"Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, Riley RD, Beam AL, Van Calster B, Ghassemi M, Liu X, Reitsma JB, van Smeden M, et al. TRIPOD\u2009+\u2009AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024;385:e078378.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"4708_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"103611","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jbi.2020.103611","volume":"112","author":"SE Davis","year":"2020","unstructured":"Davis SE, Greevy RA Jr., Lasko TA, Walsh CG, Matheny ME. Detection of calibration drift in clinical prediction models to inform model updating. J Biomed Inf. 2020;112:103611.","journal-title":"J Biomed Inf"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"316","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-022-01801-8","volume":"22","author":"MAE Binuya","year":"2022","unstructured":"Binuya MAE, Engelhardt EG, Schats W, Schmidt MK, Steyerberg EW. Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):316.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"issue":"1","key":"4708_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"32","DOI":"10.1186\/s13012-023-01287-y","volume":"18","author":"B Abell","year":"2023","unstructured":"Abell B, Naicker S, Rodwell D, Donovan T, Tariq A, Baysari M, Blythe R, Parsons R, McPhail SM. Identifying barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of computerized clinical decision support systems in hospitals: a NASSS framework-informed scoping review. Implement Sci. 2023;18(1):32.","journal-title":"Implement Sci"},{"issue":"3","key":"4708_CR45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"464","DOI":"10.1016\/j.gie.2024.03.033","volume":"100","author":"Y Xu","year":"2024","unstructured":"Xu Y, Dong Z, Huang L, Du H, Yang T, Luo C, Tao X, Wang J, Wu Z, Wu L, et al. Multistep validation of a post-ERCP pancreatitis prediction system integrating multimodal data: a multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2024;100(3):464\u201372. e417.","journal-title":"Gastrointest Endosc"}],"container-title":["BMC Gastroenterology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12876-026-04708-6","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12876-026-04708-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12876-026-04708-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T20:48:38Z","timestamp":1781642918000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1186\/s12876-026-04708-6"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,25]]},"references-count":45,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,12]]}},"alternative-id":["4708"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12876-026-04708-6","relation":{},"ISSN":["1471-230X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1471-230X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,25]]},"assertion":[{"value":"15 December 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"20 February 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"25 March 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The institutional review board of Liuzhou People\u2019s Hospital approved this study (Approval number: KY2025-173-01) with waiver of informed consent due to the retrospective nature and use of de-identified data. All methods were carried out in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"272"}}