ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
A machine learning-based model for assessing community-acquired pneumonia severity using routine blood tests.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The choice of first-line therapy for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) depends on disease severity. However, quickly and accurately differentiating mild from severe CAP patients remains challenging. This study aims to evaluate the performance of machine learning-based diagnostic models employing routine blood indicators to distinguish CAP severity. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, case-control study conducted at Xuhui Central Hospital (Discovery cohort), and Putuo People's Hospital (Validation cohort), from January 2016 to January 2024. Patients were further classified into mild or severe CAP according to the IDSA/ATS criteria. Routine blood tests were performed with an automatic blood cell analyzer. Twelve machine learning-based diagnostic models were developed from routine blood indicators for differentiating between mild and severe CAP. Results: A total of 3,127 (1,612 mild, 1,615 severe) and 2,087 participants (1,072 mild, 1,015 severe) were included in the discovery and validation cohorts, respectively. Of the 12 models developed, the random forest (RF) model showed the best performance with 9 routine blood indicators. In the discovery cohort, the model achieved an AUC of 0.95, an AUPRC of 0.94, a positive predictive value of 0.89, a negative predictive value of 0.88, an accuracy of 0.89, and an F1 score of 0.89, while in the validation cohort, it demonstrated similar performance, with values of 0.95, 0.94, 0.88, 0.87, 0.88, and 0.87, respectively. Decision curve analysis confirmed consistent net benefits from the model across all threshold probabilities. The RF model was integrated into a web application for clinical use. Conclusion: We successfully developed a nine-feature RF model with promising value for differentiating mild from severe CAP patients.
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.