ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing generalizability of a dengue classifier across multiple datasets.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Tree-Based Machine Learning for Diagnostic Classification of Dengue Fever Using Routine Hematological Parameters: A Secondary Analysis of a Publicly Available Dataset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sequential label shift detection in classification data: An application to dengue fever.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early diagnosis of dengue fever is important for individual treatment and monitoring disease prevalence in the population. To assist diagnosis, previous studies have proposed classification models to detect dengue from symptoms and clinical measurements. However, there has been little exploration of whether existing models can be used to make predictions for new populations. In this study, we assess the generalizability of dengue classification models to new datasets. We trained logistic regression models on five publicly available dengue datasets from previous studies, using three explanatory variables identified as important in prior work: age, white blood cell count, and platelet count. These five datasets were collected at different times in different locations, with a variety of disease rates and patient ages. A model was trained on each dataset, and predictive performance and model calibration was evaluated on both the original (training) dataset, and the other (test) datasets from different studies. By comparing the model's performance when applied to data from a new location, we are able to assess the model's generalizability to new populations. We further compared performance with larger models and other classification methods. In-sample area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for the logistic regression models ranged from 0.74 to 0.89, while out-of-sample AUCs ranged from 0.55 to 0.89. Matching age ranges in training/test datasets increased AUC values and balanced the sensitivity and specificity. Adjusting the predicted probabilities to account for differences in dengue prevalence improved calibration in 20/28 training-test pairs. Results were similar when other explanatory variables were included and when other classification methods (decision trees and support vector machines) were used. The in-sample performance of the logistic regression model was consistent with previous dengue classifiers, suggesting the chosen model is a good choice in a variety of settings and has decent overall performance. However, adjustments are required to make predictions on new datasets. Practitioners can use existing dengue classifiers in new settings but should be careful with different patient ages and disease rates.
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.