ArticleRespiratory research2025
Machine learning-based Diagnostic model for determining the etiology of pleural effusion using Age, ADA and LDH.
Article in Respiratory research, 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.
- Biochemistry-based machine learning algorithms in differentiating pleural effusion: current status and perspective.ERJ open research · 2026Review
- Recent advances in artificial intelligence across interventional pulmonology: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a diagnostic model for malignant pleural effusion based on random forest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Incremental predictive value of a CT-based deep learning radiomics model for differentiating benign and malignant pleural effusions.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Intercostal Artery Screening with Color Doppler Thoracic Ultrasound in Pleural Procedures: A Potential Yet Underexplored Imaging Modality for Minimizing Iatrogenic Bleeding Risk in Interventional Pulmonology.Journal of clinical 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClassification of the etiologies of pleural effusion is a critical challenge in clinical practice. Traditional diagnostic methods rely on a simple cut-off method based on the laboratory tests. However, machine learning (ML) offers a novel approach based on artificial intelligence to improving diagnostic accuracy and capture the non-linear relationships.
methodA retrospective study was conducted using data from patients diagnosed with pleural effusion. The dataset was divided into training and test set with a ratio of 7:3 with 6 machine learning algorithms implemented to diagnosis pleural effusion. Model performances were assessed by accuracy, precision, recall, F1 scores and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Feature importance and average prediction of age, Adenosine (ADA) and Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was analyzed. Decision tree was visualized.
resultsA total of 742 patients were included (training cohort: 522, test cohort: 220), 397 (53.3%) diagnosed with malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and 253 (34.1%) with tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) in the cohort. All of the 6 models performed well in the diagnosis of MPE, TPE and transudates. Extreme Gradient Boosting and Random Forest performed better in the diagnosis of the MPE, with F1 scores above 0.890, while K-Nearest Neighbors and Tabular Transformer performed better in the diagnosis of the TPE, with F1 scores above 0.870. ADA was identified as the most important feature. The ROC of machine learning model outperformed those of conventional diagnostic thresholds.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that ML models using age, ADA, and LDH can effectively classify the etiologies of pleural effusion, suggesting that ML-based approaches may enhance diagnostic decision-making.
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.