ArticleERJ open research2023
Prediction of persistent chronic cough in patients with chronic cough using machine learning.
Article in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Redefining chronic cough as a disease: why patient registries matter.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence for cough-related quality of life impairment prediction in asthmatic patients.PloS one · 2024Article
- Predicting response to neuromodulators in refractory chronic cough: An interpretable machine learning approach.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseObservational
- Correlation of gastro-esophageal reflux disease with asthma control and quality of life: a cross-sectional study from a low-middle income country.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to develop and validate prediction models for risk of persistent chronic cough (PCC) in patients with chronic cough (CC). This was a retrospective cohort study. Methods: Two retrospective cohorts of patients 18-85 years of age were identified for years 2011-2016: a specialist cohort which included CC patients diagnosed by specialists, and an event cohort which comprised CC patients identified by at least three cough events. A cough event could be a cough diagnosis, dispensing of cough medication or any indication of cough in clinical notes. Model training and validation were conducted using two machine-learning approaches and 400+ features. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. PCC was defined as a CC diagnosis or any two (specialist cohort) or three (event cohort) cough events in year 2 and again in year 3 after the index date. Results: 8581 and 52 010 patients met the eligibility criteria for the specialist and event cohorts (mean age 60.0 and 55.5 years), respectively. 38.2% and 12.4% of patients in the specialist and event cohorts, respectively, developed PCC. The utilisation-based models were mainly based on baseline healthcare utilisations associated with CC or respiratory diseases, while the diagnosis-based models incorporated traditional parameters including age, asthma, pulmonary fibrosis, obstructive pulmonary disease, gastro-oesophageal reflux, hypertension and bronchiectasis. All final models were parsimonious (five to seven predictors) and moderately accurate (area under the curve: 0.74-0.76 for utilisation-based models and 0.71 for diagnosis-based models). Conclusions: The application of our risk prediction models may be used to identify high-risk PCC patients at any stage of the clinical testing/evaluation to facilitate decision making.
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.