ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Machine learning-based analysis of prognostic factors in patients with tuberculous meningitis.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMachine learning-based approaches were applied to explore prognostic risk factors for patients with tuberculous meningitis (TBM) and develop a risk prediction model for their 1-year post-treatment poor prognosis.
methodsWe enrolled 358 patients with TBM admitted to the Department of Neurology, 940th Hospital of the Joint Logistic Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, from January 2010 to February 2022. We retrospectively collected their clinical data, with 1-year post-treatment prognosis as the primary outcome measure. Enrolled patients were randomly divided into the training set and test set at a 7:3 ratio. Predictive models were established using logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF) respectively, based on training set data. To evaluate the predictive efficacy of the established models, comparative assessments were performed for each model individually, including the receiver operating characteristic curve - area under the curve (ROC-AUC), calibration curve of predicted probabilities, decision curve analysis (DCA), as well as sensitivity and specificity.
resultsIn the training set, the RF model exhibited optimal discriminatory ability and calibration performance, with an area under the ROC-AUC of 0.940 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.912–0.968), a sensitivity of 0.783, a specificity of 0.928, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.806, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.918. In the test set, the LR model had the ROC-AUC of 0.882 (95% Cl: 0.821–0.943), a sensitivity of 1.000, a specificity of 0.731, a PPV of 0.588, a NPV of 1.000, and a Brier score of 0.131.
conclusionMachine learning-based prediction models can reliably predict the probability of 1-year post-treatment poor prognosis in TBM patients when using the optimal LR model. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: 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.