ArticlePloS one2025
Machine learning for predicting the diagnosis of tuberculous versus malignant pleural effusion: External validation and accuracy in two different settings.
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 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
- Development and validation of a diagnostic model for malignant pleural effusion based on random forest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Combining ADA, IFN-γ, and IL-6 as host biomarkers enhances diagnosis of paucibacillary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Differential diagnosis model for tuberculous and malignant pleural effusion combining U-Net automatic segmentation and deep learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Bypassing pleural aspiration for early tissue diagnosis in suspected pleural malignancy: Development and external validation of a predictive model using supervised machine learning.Qatar medical journal · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform an external validation of a previously reported machine learning (ML) approach for predicting the diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe defined two cohorts: a Training group, comprising 273 out of 1,220 effusions from our prospective study (2013-2022); and a Testing group, from a retrospective analysis of 360 effusions from 832 consecutive patients in Bajo Deba health district (1996-2012). All the effusions included were exudative and lymphocytic. In Training and Testing groups respectively, 49 and 104 cases were tuberculous, 143 and 92 were malignant, and 81 and 164 were diagnosed with "other diseases"; pre-test probabilities of pleural tuberculosis were 4% and 12.7%. Variables included were: age, pH, adenosine deaminase, glucose, protein, and lactate dehydrogenase levels, and white cell counts (total and differential) in pleural fluid. We used two ML classifiers: binary (tuberculous and non-tuberculous), and three-class (tuberculous, malignant, and others); and compared them with Bayesian analysis.
resultsThe best binary classifier yielded a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 98%, and accuracy of 95%. The best three-class classifier achieved the same accuracy and correctly classified 83% (77/92) of malignant cases. The ML models yielded higher positive predictive values than Bayesian analysis based on ADA > 40 U/l and lymphocyte percentage ≥ 50% (92%).
conclusionsThis external validation confirms the good performance of the previously reported ML approach for predicting the diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis based on exudative and lymphocytic pleural effusions, and for discriminating the cases most likely to be malignant. Additionally, ML was more accurate than the Bayesian approach in our study.
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.