ArticleScience progress
Development of a machine learning-based diagnostic model using hematological parameters to differentiate periductal mastitis from granulomatous lobular mastitis.
Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Constructing a predictive model for acute mastitis in lactating women based on machine learning.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveNonpuerperal mastitis (NPM) is an inflammatory condition, including periductal mastitis (PDM) and granulomatous lobular mastitis (GLM). The clinical manifestations of PDM and GLM are highly similar, posing significant challenges in their differentiation. Currently, there is a paucity of diagnostic models for distinguishing PDM from GLM. The objective of this research is to create and verify a model that can distinguish between PDM and GLM.MethodsThis study retrospectively collected laboratory data from 60 patients with PDM and 60 patients with GLM, and randomly assigned these patients into a training group (80%) and a testing group (20%). Additionally, 20 patients with NPM from another center were included as an external validation group. Five machine learning (ML) algorithms (Logistic Regression, XGBoost, Random Forest, AdaBoost, GNB) were combined to differentiate PDM from GLM. The performance of the models was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), and the model with the highest AUC in the testing group was selected as the best model.ResultsThe logistic regression model emerged as the optimal ML approach for distinguishing PDM from GLM, primarily utilizing six variables (RDW, mean platelet volume, C4, IFN-γ, PT, and DD). In the training group, the model achieved an AUC of 0.827, and similarly, in the testing group, it yielded an AUC of 0.807. Addition, both the training and testing groups achieved an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of over 0.7. Notably, the model also performed effectively in the external validation group, with an AUC of 0.750.ConclusionThis study established a hematological model to distinguish PDM from GLM, facilitating early diagnosis and reducing misdiagnosis in NPM patients.
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.