ArticlePloS one2022
Random forest model can predict the prognosis of hospital-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae infection as well as traditional logistic regression model.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction and verification of an early warning model for hypothermia in emergency trauma patients based on the random forest method.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of carbapenem-resistantFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Development of a Comprehensive Program for the Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Severe Infections in a Tertiary Hospital in Spain.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Zoonotic Agents in Farmed Fish: A Systematic Review from the Interdisciplinary Perspective of the One Health Concept.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Comparison between traditional logistic regression and machine learning for predicting mortality in adult sepsis patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore if random forest (RF) model can predict the prognosis of hospital-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae infection as well as traditional logistic regression(LR) model.
methodsA total of 254 cases of hospital-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae infection in a tertiary hospital in Beijing from January 2016 to December 2020 were retrospectively collected. Appropriate influencing factors were selected by referring to relevant articles from the aspects of basic clinical information and contact history before infection, and divided into a training set and a test set. Both the RF and LR models were trained by the training set, and using testing set to compare these two models.
resultsThe prediction accuracy of the LR model was 87.0%, the true positive rate of the LR model was 94.7%; the false negative rate of the LR model was 5.3%; the false positive rate of the LR model was 35%; the true negative rate of the LR model was 65%; the sensitivity of the LR model for the prognosis prediction of hospital-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae infection was 94.7%; and the specificity was 65%. The prediction accuracy of the RF model was 89.6%; the true positive rate of the RF model was 92.1%; the false negative rate of the RF model was 7.9%; the false positive rate of the RF model was 21.4%; the true negative rate of the RF model was 78.6%; the sensitivity of the RF model for the prognosis prediction of hospital-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae infection was 92.1%; and the specificity was 78.6%. ROC curve shows that the area under curve(AUC) of the LR model was 0.91, and that of the RF model was 0.95.
conclusionThe RF model has higher specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy for the prognostic prediction of hospital-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae infection than the LR model and has greater clinical application prospects.
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.