ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Development and validation of a prediction model based on a nomogram for tuberculous pleural effusion.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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 value of biochemical ratios in the differential diagnosis of tuberculous and malignant pleural effusions.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Biochemistry-based machine learning algorithms in differentiating pleural effusion: current status and perspective.ERJ open research · 2026Review
- Derivation and validation of a clinical prediction model incorporating the pleural fluid ADA-to-LDH ratio for differentiating tuberculous from malignant pleural effusions: a multi-center study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) is challenging. There is a lack of cross-sectional lateral comparisons among TPE prediction models. Objectives: We aimed to develop and validate a novel TPE prediction model and compare its diagnostic performance with that of existing models. Methods: Patients with pleural effusion were included in the training, testing, and external validation sets. Variable selection strategies included LASSO and logistic regression. The discriminability, calibration, and clinical efficacy of the prediction model were estimated in the three sets. The performance of the model was compared with that of two existing prediction models. Results: Fever, tuberculosis interferon-gamma release assays, pleural adenosine deaminase, the pleural mononuclear cell ratio, the ratio of pleural lactate dehydrogenase to pleural adenosine deaminase, pleural carcinoembryonic antigen, and pleural cytokeratin 19 fragment were selected to establish the prediction model. The AUCs were 0.931 (0.903-0.958), 0.856 (0.753-0.959), and 0.925 (0.867-0.984) in the training, testing, and external validation sets, respectively. The AUCs of the two existing prediction models were 0.793 (0.737-0.850) and 0.854 (0.816-0.892). The calibration curves revealed that this model had good consistency. Decision curve analysis revealed the acceptable clinical benefit of this model. Conclusion: Compared with the existing models, the TPE prediction model developed in this study demonstrated good diagnostic performance.
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.