ArticleScientific reports2024
Predictive modeling of co-infection in lupus nephritis using multiple machine learning algorithms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and temporal validation of a clinical prediction model to identify bacterial infection in hospitalised patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning in lupus nephritis: bridging prediction models and clinical decision-making towards personalized nephrology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets in lupus nephritis (LN) patients and use machine learning (ML) methods to establish an effective algorithm for predicting co-infection in LN. This study included 111 non-infected LN patients, 72 infected LN patients, and 206 healthy controls (HCs). Patient information, infection characteristics, medication, and laboratory indexes were recorded. Eight ML methods were compared to establish a model through a training group and verify the results in a test group. We trained the ML models, including Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine, Multi-Layer Perceptron, Random Forest, Ada boost, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), and further evaluated potential predictors of infection. Infected LN patients had significantly decreased levels of T, B, helper T, suppressor T, and natural killer cells compared to non-infected LN patients and HCs. The number of regulatory T cells (Tregs) in LN patients was significantly lower than in HCs, with infected patients having the lowest Tregs count. Among the ML algorithms, XGB demonstrated the highest accuracy and precision for predicting LN infections. The innate and adaptive immune systems are disrupted in LN patients, and monitoring lymphocyte subsets can help prevent and treat infections. The XGB algorithm was recommended for predicting co-infection in LN.
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.