ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
The crucial role of machine learning models in predicting current childhood asthma: model comparison, calibration, and SHAP-based interpretation.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Asthma is one of the most prominent chronic diseases in children and one of the most challenging ailments to diagnose in infants and preschoolers in the United States. Predictive models can be instrumental in improving early diagnosis, personalized treatment strategies, and disease progression. By utilizing nationalized data, this study focuses on building and comparing high-performing analytical predictive models based on the relevant risk factors and identifying the most influential predictors. Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional BRFSS Asthma Call-Back Survey data (2011-2020; Results: Of the five predictive models, the XGBoost was found to be the best performing model with AUC: 0.95, followed by random forest (AUC: 0.9345), GBM (AUC: 0.9341), SVM (AUC 0.9304), and LASSO (AUC 0.88); however, the random forest model was found to have the highest sensitivity (0.9786), and hence preferred for initial screening of asthma. On the independent test set, calibration (10-bin reliability curves; Brier/ECE/intercept-slope) improved most with isotonic regression, specifically for Random Forest (ECE 0.0158 to 0.0086; intercept -0.174 to -0.010), whereas Platt scaling often worsened calibration, with AUC remaining largely stable across models (AUC ≈ 0.92-0.95). The top two contributing predictors were overnight hospitalization visits and time since the last asthma medication, accounting for 24.62 and 20.92%, respectively, of the asthma status, from the VIP. Conclusion: The analytical methodology of model development was found to be instrumental in the discovery of behavioral health-risk knowledge and to visualize the significance of predictive modeling from a multidimensional behavioral health survey. These insights can be instrumental in predicting different types of chronic lung diseases affecting people of all ages and can be useful for clinicians to diagnose asthma at an early stage, allowing for early intervention and proactive management.
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.