ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Application of machine-learning algorithms to identify the key determinants of risk for HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B in primary care settings.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTesting for Blood-Borne-Viruses (BBVs) such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) is generally focused on specialist settings. However, people with undiagnosed infections are also present within the general population. We explore whether using machine-learning algorithms (MLAs) can identify people at heightened risk of HIV, HBV, HCV, or a composite 'any BBV' (defined as positivity for one or more of the three infections) in primary care settings.
methodsFrom de-identified electronic health records data from 165 general practices in North East London we extracted risk factors for HIV, HCV and HBV and used them to train (75% data) and test (25% data) three MLAs: Logistic Regression (LR), AdaBoost with random under sampling (RUSBoost) and Balanced Random Forest classifier (BRFC). The ROC curves, ROC AUC, sensitivity and specificity values quantified the models' performance. Across the models the key features for each outcome were identified.
resultsA total of 1,987,954 patients were included in the study with no inclusion or exclusion criteria, from whom 75 predictive features were selected for HIV, 24 for HCV, 37 for HBV and 88 for any BBV outcome. Different models were optimal for individual BBVs positivity classification, depending on the accuracy metric. As a single infection, HCV was predicted most accurately across models and accuracy metrics. When targeting any BBV outcome, LR was the model with highest AUC value, BRFC was the most sensitive model and RUSBoost was the most specific model. The key identified features were similar across models with age the strongest predictor for both individual positivity and the composite outcome. A number of features were important for two of the BBV positive groups: Black African ethnicity (HIV and HBV), liver disease (HBV and HCV) and opiate and cocaine use (HBV and HCV). A number of individual features were important for individual BBVs positivity.
conclusionOur findings illustrate that combining digital technology with routinely available general practice data has promise in improving case-finding of targeted BBV testing. There are however challenges in identifying the optimal MLAs and the accuracy metrics for multiple HIV/HCV/HBV positivity. This underscores the importance of evaluating different models and applying a broad set of accuracy criteria when utilising digital technology for precision medicine. 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.