ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Machine learning prediction of tuberculosis mortality: a comparative analysis of random survival forest and cox regression models.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurvival analysis is widely used to predict time-to-event outcomes, with the Cox regression model being a standard approach. However, machine learning methods such as Random Survival Forests (RSF) can capture complex, non-linear relationships that traditional models may miss.
objectiveThis study compared the predictive performance of RSF and Cox regression in modelling tuberculosis (TB) mortality.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of TB patients treated at the East London Central Clinic in South Africa. Patient data included demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables. Model performance was evaluated using five metrics (C-index, Brier Score, Integrated Brier Score, Integrated Absolute Error, and Integrated Squared Error) along with time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Variable importance was assessed to identify key predictors.
resultsThe RSF model consistently outperformed the Cox model across all evaluation metrics. RSF achieved a higher integrated AUC (0.815 vs. 0.652) and lower prediction error (IBS = 0.235 vs. 0.261). Important predictors of mortality included age, sex, weight, and disease class, with RSF capturing their time-dependent effects more accurately. The cumulative case/dynamic control ROC curve showed the strongest predictive accuracy at 120 days (AUC = 0.856).
conclusionRSF demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared with Cox regression in modelling TB mortality. Its ability to account for non-linear and time-dependent effects makes it a potentially useful tool for improving risk prediction and guiding patient management in TB care. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
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.