ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Prediction of atelectasis in
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.