ArticleAnnals of hematology2026
Machine learning mortality prediction model for cyclosporine therapy in pediatric aplastic anemia.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The outcomes of children with aplastic anemia receiving cyclosporine monotherapy vary significantly in terms of mortality risk; therefore, a prognostic model for predicting mortality risk was constructed to optimize risk-stratified treatment strategies. This retrospective cohort study included children with acquired AA receiving cyclosporine-based immunosuppression, stratified by disease severity (vSAA/SAA/NSAA) and randomly split into training (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts. Ten machine learning models were developed; hyperparameters were optimized via grid search with 10-fold cross-validation exclusively within the training cohort to prevent data leakage. Model performance was evaluated using area under the ROC curve (AUC), accuracy, recall, specificity, precision, F1 score, and Brier score. Decision curve analysis (DCA) quantified clinical net benefit. The calibration curve was used to evaluate the reliability of the predicted probabilities. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework was used to interpret feature contributions and ensure model transparency. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression on the training cohort identified 5 predictors: reticulocyte count (RC), platelet count (PLT), disease subtype (vSAA/SAA/NSAA), total bilirubin (TB), and bone marrow myeloid proportion. The CatBoost model achieved the highest performance: AUC 0.834 (95% CI: 0.774-0.895) in training and 0.826 (95% CI: 0.743-0.910) in validation, with acceptable calibration (Brier score: 0.206 in training cohort, 0.207 in validation cohort). SHAP analysis confirmed RC as the top contributor, with lower RC values associated with higher predicted mortality risk. The CatBoost model demonstrates robust performance and transparency for predicting mortality risk in children with AA after cyclosporine treatment. Adherence to TRIPOD + AI guidelines ensures methodological rigor, supporting its potential as a clinical decision tool to stratify patients into distinct mortality risk groups and optimize individualized treatment strategies.
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.