ArticleFrontiers in allergy2025
Predicting first-time anaphylaxis in the elderly using stacked machine learning and population registers.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving machine-learning development in allergology: bridging the gap between open-access and cohort-based databases.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that requires rapid identification and intervention. Predicting individuals at risk remains a clinical challenge due to its multifactorial nature and variable presentation. Objective: To develop and evaluate explainable machine learning models that predict the risk of anaphylaxis using routinely collected clinical data. Methods: We analysed a matched case-control dataset derived from anonymised electronic health records. After applying chi-squared-based feature selection, we trained multiple classification algorithms-including logistic regression, decision trees, random forests, XGBoost, and a stacking ensemble. Model performance was evaluated using AUC, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-score. SHAP values were used to assess model explainability. Results: The best-performing model achieved an AUC of 0.79, demonstrating high discrimination and balanced sensitivity/specificity. Key predictors included healthcare utilisation patterns, age, socioeconomic proxy (copayment level), and specific diagnostic codes related to allergic conditions. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential of interpretable machine learning approaches to support the early identification of individuals at high risk of anaphylaxis. These tools can enhance clinical risk stratification and inform preventive strategies in routine practice.
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.