Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42337454›Full record

Observational studyBMC infectious diseases2026

Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for early hospital-based differentiation of chikungunya and dengue fever using routine clinical data.

Lin Zhang, Jing Liu, Jia-Liang Mai, Quan Yang, Jia-Yi Zhao, Meng-Hui Hong

Abstract readObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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.

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

6 authors.

Lin ZhangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Foshan Women and Children Hospital, Guangdong Medical University, Foshan, Guangdong, 528000, China.
Jing LiuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Foshan Women and Children Hospital, Guangdong Medical University, Foshan, Guangdong, 528000, China.
Jia-Liang MaiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Foshan Women and Children Hospital, Guangdong Medical University, Foshan, Guangdong, 528000, China.
Quan YangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Foshan Women and Children Hospital, Guangdong Medical University, Foshan, Guangdong, 528000, China.
Jia-Yi ZhaoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Foshan Women and Children Hospital, Guangdong Medical University, Foshan, Guangdong, 528000, China.
Meng-Hui HongDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Foshan Women and Children Hospital, Guangdong Medical University, Foshan, Guangdong, 528000, China. 203907869@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChikungunya fever (CHIKF) and dengue fever are mosquito-borne viral diseases. These infections often circulate in the same regions at the same time. Early symptoms can look very similar between the two diseases. This overlap makes early and accurate diagnosis difficult. Many endemic clinics do not have easy access to molecular tests such as RT-PCR [1, 2]. Clinicians therefore need other practical tools for early decision-making. In this study, we aimed to develop an interpretable machine learning model. The model uses routine clinical signs and standard laboratory results. We also aimed to validate the model for differentiation of CHIKF from dengue fever at initial hospital-based assessment.

methodsThis retrospective observational study analyzed 1,058 laboratory-confirmed arboviral infections, including 366 patients with CHIKF and 692 patients with dengue fever. The dataset was stratified by diagnosis and randomly divided into a training set (n = 742) and a held-out test set (n = 316) at a 7:3 ratio. The team collected clinical symptoms, complete blood count (CBC) results, and inflammatory marker data. The team then used these variables to build eight machine learning models. The study evaluated model performance with discrimination metrics. The study also assessed calibration. The study further used decision curve analysis to estimate clinical usefulness. The team examined feature importance with Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). The team deployed the best-performing model as a web-based clinical decision-support tool.

resultsAmong the tested approaches, the gradient boosting model (GBM) showed the best and most consistent performance. The GBM achieved a high area under the ROC curve (AUC) in both the training and test sets. The GBM also delivered strong sensitivity and specificity across both cohorts. The SHAP analysis repeatedly highlighted platelet count (PLT) and rash as the most important predictors of CHIKF. These findings match well with known clinical patterns. The online deployment integrated the final model into a simple platform. The platform provides automated, real-time risk estimates using only a small set of routinely available variables.

conclusionThis study shows that interpretable machine learning models can help clinicians distinguish CHIKF from dengue fever early. The models rely on routine clinical information and standard laboratory tests. These inputs are widely available in many settings. The study also presents a web-based tool that applies the best model at the bedside. The tool may be especially useful in resource-limited clinics. However, the tool still needs external validation. Future studies should test the model in multicenter, prospective cohorts.

Indexed as

Chikungunya FeverDengueMachine LearningAdultDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Learning ModelsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveYoung AdultChikungunya feverDengue feverMachine learning models

Identifiers

PMID42337454
PMCPMC13548544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.