ArticleBMC biotechnology2026
Interpretable machine learning reveals metabolomic signatures: biomarkers and mechanisms in acute vs chronic angle-closure glaucoma.
Article in BMC biotechnology, 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
backgroundsAcute primary angle-closure glaucoma (APACG) and chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma (CPACG) exhibit distinct clinical features, yet the molecular mechanisms underlying their differing progression rates remain unclear. This study integrates metabolomics and machine learning to identify subtype-specific metabolic profiles and serum biomarkers for distinguishing APACG from CPACG.
methodsA total of 128 patients were included: 47 APACG and 47 CPACG patients from the Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, 20 APACG and 14 CPACG patients from Xuhui Central Hospital. Serum metabolomics was performed via UPLC-MS/MS. Differentially abundant metabolites were identified through metabolomic profiling, and machine learning models were developed to classify subtypes. Model performance was evaluated via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, precision‒recall curves, and decision curve analysis. OPLS-DA revealed significant metabolic differences between APACG and CPACG, particularly in the amino acid and caffeine metabolism pathways.
resultsEight differentially abundant metabolites, including caffeine and its metabolites, were consistently identified in both sets. Among the 10 machine learning models, XGBoost demonstrated the best performance, with AUC values of 0.85 (training set) and 0.82 (independent validation set). SHAP analysis highlighted 1-methylxanthine and 3-methylxanthine as key contributors to the model’s predictive performance.
conclusionsThis study revealed distinct metabolic profiles between APACG and CPACG, with caffeine and its metabolites playing a significant role. The XGBoost model exhibited robust predictive performance, suggesting its potential clinical utility for differentiating PACG subtypes.
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.