ArticleAsia Pacific allergy2024
Artificial intelligence applications in allergic rhinitis diagnosis: Focus on ensemble learning.
Article in Asia Pacific allergy, 2024. 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.
- An immunodominance perspective on a paradoxical phenomenon: discovery and modeling of ragweed and tree sensitization as negative predictors for high mugwort IgE reactivity.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Article
- Advances in clinical examination techniques for allergic rhinitis: a review from traditional testing to precision diagnosis.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Preparing Allergists to Practice in 2050 Using Artificial Intelligence.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2025Review
- Application and research progress of artificial intelligence in allergic diseases.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility in allergic rhinitis management: Systematic review.Annals of thoracic medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR) primarily relies on symptoms and laboratory examinations. Due to limitations in outpatient settings, certain tests such as nasal provocation tests and nasal secretion smear examinations are not routinely conducted. Although there are clear diagnostic criteria, an accurate diagnosis still requires the expertise of an experienced doctor, considering the patient's medical history and conducting examinations. However, differences in physician knowledge and limitations of examination methods can result in variations in diagnosis. Objective: Artificial intelligence is a significant outcome of the rapid advancement in computer technology today. This study aims to present an intelligent diagnosis and detection method based on ensemble learning for AR. Method: We conducted a study on AR cases and 7 other diseases exhibiting similar symptoms, including rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinitis, upper respiratory tract infection, etc. Clinical data, encompassing medical history, clinical symptoms, allergen detection, and imaging, was collected. To develop an effective classifier, multiple models were employed to train on the same batch of data. By utilizing ensemble learning algorithms, we obtained the final ensemble classifier known as adaptive random forest-out of bag-easy ensemble (ARF-OOBEE). In order to perform comparative experiments, we selected 5 commonly used machine learning classification algorithms: Naive Bayes, support vector machine, logistic regression, multilayer perceptron, deep forest (GC Forest), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost).To evaluate the prediction performance of AR samples, various parameters such as precision, sensitivity, specificity, G-mean, F1-score, and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve were jointly employed as evaluation indicators. Results: We compared 7 classification models, including probability models, tree models, linear models, ensemble models, and neural network models. The ensemble classification algorithms, namely ARF-OOBEE and GC Forest, outperformed the other algorithms in terms of the comprehensive classification evaluation index. The accuracy of G-mean and AUC parameters improved by nearly 2% when compared to the other algorithms. Moreover, these ensemble classifiers exhibited excellent performance in handling large-scale data and unbalanced samples. Conclusion: The ARF-OOBEE ensemble learning model demonstrates strong generalization performance and comprehensive classification abilities, making it suitable for effective application in auxiliary AR 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.