ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict prognostic outcomes in infantile epileptic spasms syndrome.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- XGBoost Classification of Epileptic EEG Using Nonlinear Dynamical Features and SHAP.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Objective: To develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model for predicting seizure outcomes in infants with infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS). Methods: This retrospective study enrolled pediatric patients diagnosed with infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS) from Wuhan Children's Hospital. The cohort was randomly split into training and validation sets at a 7:3 ratio. Independent prognostic factors were identified using Cox regression analysis. Six machine learning algorithms were then applied to develop predictive models. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination (e.g., AUROC), calibration (calibration curves), and clinical utility (decision curve analysis, DCA). The optimal model (XGBoost) was interpreted via decision tree visualization and SHAP analysis. Results: Poor seizure outcome was observed in 56% of the cohort. MRI findings of tuberous sclerosis complex or malformations of cortical development were independent risk factors. Among the models, XGBoost demonstrated the best overall performance, achieving an AUROC of 0.921 in the validation set, along with robust calibration and clinical utility. Conclusion: The developed ML model reliably and interpretably predicts poor seizure outcomes in IESS patients using routine clinical data, potentially aiding in clinical decision-making and follow-up planning.
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.