Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42220987›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026

Prediction of atelectasis in

Jia Sun, Tengfei Wang, Mengsi Li, Mian Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jia SunDepartment of Pediatrics, Wuhan Wuchang Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Tengfei WangSchool of Transportation and Logistics Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China.
Mengsi LiDepartment of Pediatrics, Wuhan Wuchang Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Mian WangDepartment of Pediatrics, Wuhan Wuchang Hospital, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of three machine learning models-K-nearest neighbors (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), and neural network (NN)-for predicting the risk of atelectasis in children with Methods: Based on the clinical data of 508 pediatric patients, we performed feature selection and developed KNN, SVM, and NN models. Model performance was compared on an independent validation set, and SHAP values were employed to elucidate the predictive logic of the models. Results: On the validation set, the neural network (NN) model demonstrated the best overall performance, with an AUC of 0.89 and an accuracy of 0.82. The KNN model showed comparable performance (AUC = 0.88), while the SVM model achieved the highest specificity (0.87). The SHAP analysis consistently identified neutrophil percentage (NEU.pct), serum amyloid A (SAA), and C-reactive protein (CRP) as the most critical variables influencing the predictions. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of different machine learning models in predicting the risk of atelectasis in MPP. The neural network, in particular, exhibited superior performance owing to its powerful non-linear modeling capabilities. These interpretable models provide clinicians with a diverse set of tools to accommodate various clinical priorities, such as overall accuracy or high specificity, thereby facilitating the early identification and stratified management of high-risk children.

Indexed as

atelectasisMycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonianeural networkrisk predictionSHAP

Identifiers

PMID42220987
PMCPMC13220724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.