ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
Machine learning models identify prognostic factors in systemic lupus erythematosus patients with epstein-barr virus infection.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify poor prognostic factors in Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using interpretable machine-learning (ML) models.
methodWe retrospectively analysed 217 EBV-positive SLE in-patients (2018-2022). Clinical and laboratory variables were compared between favorable and poor prognosis groups. Seven ML algorithms-logistic regression, support vector machine, naïve Bayes, random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), artificial neural network, and AdaBoost-were trained with a 70/30 train-test split. Recursive feature elimination with cross-validation selected the optimal predictor set. SHAP (Shapley additive explanations) illustrated feature importance.
resultsSix clinical features (SLEDAI-2 K, lupus nephritis, splenomegaly, arthritis, rash, fever) and six laboratory indicators (haemoglobin, 24-h urine protein, serum uric acid, EBNA-IgG, AST, CD3 + T-cell percentage) constituted the final model inputs. The RF model performed best for clinical variables (AUC 0.71; F1 0.55); GBM performed best for laboratory variables (AUC 0.56; F1 0.30). SHAP confirmed SLEDAI-2 K, lupus nephritis, and haemoglobin as the most influential predictors.
conclusionInterpretable ML models highlight disease activity, renal involvement, haematological status, and EBV serology as important model-selected features associated with poor prognosis in EBV-positive SLE. These findings provide exploratory insights into potential prognostic factors. Key Points • Seven machine learning models were systematically compared for prognostic risk prediction in SLE patients with Epstein-Barr virus infection. • Random Forest showed the best performance for clinical indicators, whereas Gradient Boosting Machine performed best for laboratory indicators. • Both clinical and laboratory variables contributed to exploratory risk stratification, and hemoglobin was identified as a model-selected laboratory feature associated with poor-prognosis predictions. • A prognostic risk detection model integrating clinical and laboratory indicators was established for SLE patients with Epstein-Barr virus infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42518034What 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.