ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Validation and interpretation of machine-learning models for rapid identification of active tuberculosis infection using routine laboratory indicators.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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.
- Recent Mycobacterium tuberculosis Transmission, United States, 2018-2022.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model for StagingJournal of medical Internet research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Diagnosis of active Methods: A discovery cohort of 3,829 individuals and an external validation cohort of 405 individuals were included. Six supervised machine learning models were trained using routine laboratory data, and model interpretability was assessed with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Results: Among the six models, XGBoost demonstrated the best diagnostic performance in the internal cohort (accuracy 97.49%; sensitivity 97.56%; specificity 97.42%) and maintained strong performance in the external cohort (accuracy 93.67%; sensitivity 91.56%; specificity 91.13%). SHAP analysis indicated that key predictors reflected characteristic host-response patterns, including inflammation-related hypoalbuminemia, lipid metabolism suppression (HDL-C and LDL-C), altered platelet activity (MPV), and lymphocyte reduction (LYM). Conclusion: The study presents a high-performing and interpretable machine learning model capable of accurately identifying active Mtb infection using routine blood tests. This low-cost and non-invasive approach has strong potential for application in resource-limited and high-burden settings.
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.