ArticleScientific reports2024
A predictive model for secondary central nervous system infection after craniotomy based on machine learning.
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, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications and challenges of biomarker-based predictive models in proactive health management.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Development and internal validation of a machine learning model for predicting intracranial infection after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a two-center retrospective study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
To analyze the risk factors of secondary Central nervous system infections (CNSIs) after craniotomy, and to establish an individualized predictive model for CNSIs risk. The independent risk factors were screened by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression, naive bayes, random forest, light GBM and adaboost algorithms were used to establish predictive models for secondary CNSIs after craniotomy. The predictive model based on the Adaboost algorithm demonstrated superior prediction performance compared to the other four models. Under 5-fold cross validation, the accuracy was 0.80, the precision was 0.69, the recall was 0.85, the F1-score was 0.76, the area under the ROC curve was 0.897,and the average precision was 0.880. The top 5 variables of importance in Adaboost model were operation time, indwelling time of lumbar drainage tube, indwelling lumbar drainage tube during operation, indwelling epidural drainage tube during operation, and GCS score. In addition, Adaboost model with the best prediction performance was used for clinical verification, and the prediction results were compared with the actual occurrence of CNSIs after surgery. The results showed that the accuracy of Adaboost model in predicting CNSIs was 60%, the accuracy of Adaboost model in predicting non-CNSIS was 92%, and the overall prediction accuracy was 76%.
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.