ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and internal validation of a machine learning-based prediction model for pulmonary hypertension in COPD.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is frequently complicated by pulmonary hypertension (PH), which worsens prognosis, but early PH detection is limited by the invasiveness or suboptimal sensitivity of current diagnostic tools. Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed 523 hospitalized patients with COPD from Beijing Chaoyang Hospital. After standardized preprocessing and recursive feature elimination, 18 routinely available noninvasive clinical and physiological variables were retained as predictors. Eight machine-learning algorithms were trained to predict PH and compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and decision-curve analysis; model interpretability was assessed with Shapley additive explanations (SHAP). Results: The CatBoost model showed the best discrimination (AUC 0.848; accuracy 0.830; sensitivity 0.758; specificity 0.866; F1 0.746). SHAP analysis identified right ventricular diameter, pulmonary artery diameter, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, right atrial transverse diameter, and age as the most influential predictors. Conclusion: A CatBoost-based prediction model using readily obtainable noninvasive variables can estimate PH risk in COPD with good accuracy and provide transparent feature-level explanations, potentially facilitating earlier detection and risk-stratified management.
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.