ArticlePeerJ2025
Interpretable noninvasive diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion using LGBM and SHAP: development and clinical application of a machine learning model.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) is a prevalent tuberculosis complication, with diagnosis presenting considerable challenges. Timely and precise identification of TPE is vital for effective patient management and prognosis, yet existing diagnostic methods tend to be invasive, lengthy, and often lack sufficient accuracy. This study seeks to design and validate an interpretable machine learning model based on routine laboratory data to enable noninvasive and rapid TPE diagnosis. Methods: A multicenter prospective study was conducted across China between January 2021 and September 2024, enrolling 963 patients. The derivation cohort, comprising 763 patients, was employed for model training and internal validation, while 200 patients formed the external validation cohort. The model was built upon 18 routine laboratory parameters, including pleural fluid and serum biomarkers, with multiple machine learning (ML) algorithms evaluated. Light gradient boosting machine (LGBM) emerged as the top-performing model. Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis assessed feature importance and interpretability. Model performance was evaluated Results: Of the 10 ML models compared, LGBM demonstrated superior performance. Feature importance analysis identified 11 key variables, leading to constructing a highly interpretable LGBM model. The model achieved an AUC of 0.9454 in internal validation and 0.9262 in external validation, showcasing strong robustness and generalizability. SHAP analysis enhanced interpretability by highlighting each feature's contribution to prediction outcomes. This model has since been integrated into clinical practice for noninvasive, rapid TPE diagnosis. During external validation, the model achieved a sensitivity of 0.8600, specificity of 0.9056, positive predictive value of 0.8698, and negative predictive value of 0.8686, underscoring its accuracy across diverse patient cohorts. Interpretation: This interpretable machine learning model offers a noninvasive, accurate solution for early TPE diagnosis, significantly reducing reliance on invasive procedures. The integration of SHAP ensures the model's clinical interpretability, mitigating concerns surrounding the "black-box" nature of many machine learning approaches. Conclusions: This interpretable LGBM-based model provides a reliable, noninvasive tool for TPE diagnosis. It supports clinical decision-making with real-time risk assessment and promises broader applicability through future integration into clinical information systems.
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.