ArticleRespiratory research2026
Development and internal validation of a machine learning-based model for predicting 2-year mortality in interstitial lung disease.
Article in Respiratory research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterized by marked heterogeneity and an overall poor prognosis, with many patients experiencing rapid progression and high short-term mortality. Accurate early risk stratification remains challenging. This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models for predicting short-term mortality in ILD and to explore the added prognostic value of nutritional indicators beyond the conventional ILD-GAP score.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 670 patients with ILD, including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF, 35.1%), connective tissue disease–associated ILD (CTD-ILD, 47.9%), and chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP, 17.0%), from a single-center cohort. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 2 years. After data preprocessing and multiple imputation, recursive feature elimination was applied to select optimal predictors. Nine ML models were constructed and optimized using 10 rounds of tenfold cross-validation. Model performance was evaluated by AUC, calibration curves, Precision–Recall curves, and decision curve analysis. The best-performing model was interpreted using SHAP. In addition, the prognostic value of incorporating albumin (ALB) into the ILD-GAP score was assessed.
resultsAmong the evaluated models, extreme gradient boosting (XGB) achieved the best overall performance. Key predictors included DLCO, age, LDH, ALB, and total protein. Incorporation of ALB into the ILD-GAP model significantly improved performance (AUC increased from 0.813 to 0.892 in the training set and from 0.848 to 0.940 in the testing set). SHAP analysis identified DLCO and albumin as major contributors to the model’s mortality predictions. Restricted cubic spline analyses identified clinically meaningful risk thresholds for these variables.
conclusionsMachine learning–based models, especially ensemble algorithms, enable accurate and practical prediction of short-term mortality in ILD. Nutritional status, reflected by ALB, provides substantial incremental prognostic value beyond the ILD-GAP score. Integrating routine clinical data with interpretable ML approaches offers an effective strategy for early identification of high-risk ILD patients and supports individualized clinical 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.