Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35836985›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Prediction of Lumbar Drainage-Related Meningitis Based on Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms.

Peng Wang, Shuwen Cheng, Yaxin Li, Li Liu, Jia Liu, Qiang Zhao, Shuang Luo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Peng WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Institute of Chengdu, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, China.
Shuwen ChengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Institute of Chengdu, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, China.
Yaxin LiWest China Fourth Hospital/West China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Li LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Institute of Chengdu, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, China.
Jia LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Institute of Chengdu, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, China.
Qiang ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Institute of Chengdu, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, China.
Shuang LuoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Institute of Chengdu, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lumbar drainage is widely used in the clinic; however, forecasting lumbar drainage-related meningitis (LDRM) is limited. We aimed to establish prediction models using supervised machine learning (ML) algorithms. Methods: We utilized a cohort of 273 eligible lumbar drainage cases. Data were preprocessed and split into training and testing sets. Optimal hyper-parameters were archived by 10-fold cross-validation and grid search. The support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and artificial neural network (ANN) were adopted for model training. The area under the operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and precision-recall curve (AUPRC), true positive ratio (TPR), true negative ratio (TNR), specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and kappa coefficient were used for model evaluation. All trained models were internally validated. The importance of features was also analyzed. Results: In the training set, all the models had AUROC exceeding 0.8. SVM and the RF models had an AUPRC of more than 0.6, but the ANN model had an unexpectedly low AUPRC (0.380). The RF and ANN models revealed similar TPR, whereas the ANN model had a higher TNR and demonstrated better specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and kappa efficiency. In the testing set, most performance indicators of established models decreased. However, the RF and AVM models maintained adequate AUROC (0.828 vs. 0.719) and AUPRC (0.413 vs. 0.520), and the RF model also had better TPR, specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and kappa efficiency. Site leakage showed the most considerable mean decrease in accuracy. Conclusions: The RF and SVM models could predict LDRM, in which the RF model owned the best performance, and site leakage was the most meaningful predictor.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMeningitisAlgorithmsDrainageHumansSupervised Machine Learninginfectious diseaseslumbar drainagemachine learningmeningitisprediction model

Identifiers

PMID35836985
PMCPMC9273930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.