ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning algorithms for identification of asthma in United States adults based on NHANES dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of conventional formulas and machine learning models for estimating serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Association between vitamin D levels and psychological stress-induced asthma prevalence: an untargeted metabolomics study combined with the NHANES database.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Development of an explainable machine learning asthma prediction model using serum brominated flame retardants in a national population.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Potassium and survival outcomes in asthma patients: evidence from a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Associations between metabolic-inflammatory biomarkers andFrontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
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
Asthma diagnosis poses challenges due to underreporting of symptoms, misdiagnoses, and limitations in existing diagnostic tests. Machine learning (ML) offers a promising avenue for addressing these challenges by leveraging demographic and clinical data. In this study, we aim to compare different ML diagnostic models and obtain the most valuable features for asthma diagnosis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) dataset. A total of 8,888 participants with available asthma diagnosis data from the 2017-2018 NHANES survey were included. After careful selection of variables related to asthma, various ML algorithms including Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), AdaBoost (ADA), XGBoost (XGB), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Naive Bayes (NB), and Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) were evaluated. SVM and ADA emerged as top performers with the highest area under the curve (AUC) scores of 0.72 and 0.71, respectively. RF exhibited high accuracy but low precision. Feature interpretation using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values identified significant predictors such as close relative asthma history, dietary fat intake, and chronic bronchitis. Feature reduction experiments showed promising results without significant loss in predictive performance. Our findings demonstrate the potential diagnosis ability of ML algorithms, particularly SVM and ADA, in asthma diagnosis by incorporating diverse clinical and demographic factors. In addition, close relative asthma history, dietary fat intake, and chronic bronchitis could be suggested as the valuable asthma diagnosis features. These outcomes can bring promising results in early diagnosis of asthma.
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.