ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Improving meningitis surveillance and diagnosis with machine learning: Insights from São Paulo.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Cerebrospinal Fluid Presepsin vs. Procalcitonin in Post-Neurosurgical Bacterial Ventriculitis/Meningitis: A Machine Learning Analytical Approach.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2026Article
- An explainable machine learning model predicts pediatric varicella encephalitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of Secondary Bacterial Meningitis via Aromatic Metabolites and Biomarkers in Cerebrospinal Fluid.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMeningitis, an inflammatory condition of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord, can be caused by various agents. Bacterial meningitis is particularly severe due to its high morbidity and mortality rates. This study aims to develop machine learning (ML) models to classify the aetiology of bacterial meningitis using data from the Notifiable Diseases Information System (SINAN) in São Paulo State, Brazil.
methodsData were collected from the SINAN database, including sociodemographic variables, clinical symptoms, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analyses. Five ML models Random Forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, CatBoost, and AdaBoost were applied to classify meningitis cases into bacterial, fungal, viral, and other types. Models were evaluated using metrics such as AUC-ROC, accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and MCC.
resultsThe CatBoost model demonstrated superior performance, achieving an AUC-ROC of 0.95 for binary classification (bacterial vs. non-bacterial) and 0.85 for multiclass classification (Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae). XGBoost and LightGBM also showed promising results with AUC-ROC scores of 0.94 and 0.92, respectively, for binary classification. The CatBoost model exhibited high sensitivity and reasonable specificity, highlighting its applicability in the rapid and accurate diagnosis of meningitis. SHAP analysis identified variables such as leukocyte count and the presence of petechiae as influential predictors in the models.
conclusionML algorithms, particularly CatBoost, XGBoost, and LightGBM, proved highly effective in the differential diagnosis of meningitis, offering a valuable tool for the rapid identification of meningitis types and bacterial serogroups. These techniques can be integrated into public health protocols to improve meningitis outbreak responses and optimize patient treatment.
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.