ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Development and validation of a diagnostic model for differentiating tuberculous spondylitis from brucellar spondylitis using machine learning: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying research hotspots and trends in brucella spondylitis: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Etiologic spectrum and diagnostic gaps of spinal infections: a cross-sectional study in Qingdao, China.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Integration of single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing reveals divergent T-cell immune circuits and a shared osteo-immune pathway in spinal tuberculosis and brucellar spondylitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive comparative analysis of explainable deep learning model for differentiation of brucellar spondylitis and tuberculous spondylitis through MRI sequences.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Multimodal-Imaging-Based Interpretable Deep Learning Framework for Distinguishing Brucella from Tuberculosis Spondylitis: A Dual-Center Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development of a deep learning-based MRI diagnostic model for human Brucella spondylitis.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Machine learning-enabled prediction of prolonged length of stay in hospital after surgery for tuberculosis spondylitis patients with unbalanced data: a novel approach using explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- A Novel Differentiation Nomogram Model for Brucellar Spondylitis and Tuberculous Spondylitis.Infection and drug resistance · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tuberculous spondylitis (TS) and brucellar spondylitis (BS) are commonly observed in spinal infectious diseases, which are initially caused by bacteremia. BS is easily misdiagnosed as TS, especially in underdeveloped regions of northwestern China with less sensitive medical equipment. Nevertheless, a rapid and reliable diagnostic tool remains to be developed and a clinical diagnostic model to differentiate TS and BS using machine learning algorithms is of great significance. Methods: A total of 410 patients were included in this study. Independent factors to predict TS were selected by using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model, permutation feature importance, and multivariate logistic regression analysis. A TS risk prediction model was developed with six different machine learning algorithms. We used several metrics to evaluate the accuracy, calibration capability, and predictability of these models. The performance of the model with the best predictability was further verified with the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the calibration curve. The clinical performance of the final model was evaluated by decision curve analysis. Results: Six variables were incorporated in the final model, namely, pain severity, CRP, x-ray intervertebral disc height loss, x-ray endplate sclerosis, CT vertebral destruction, and MRI paravertebral abscess. The analysis of appraising six models revealed that the logistic regression model developed in the current study outperformed other methods in terms of sensitivity (0.88 ± 0.07) and accuracy (0.79 ± 0.07). The AUC of the logistic regression model predicting TS was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.90) in the training set and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.92) in the validation set. The decision curve analysis indicated that the logistic regression model displayed a higher clinical efficiency in the differential diagnosis. Conclusions: The logistic regression model developed in this study outperformed other methods. The logistic regression model demonstrated by a calculator exerts good discrimination and calibration capability and could be applicable in differentiating TS from BS in primary health care diagnosis.
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.