ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and internal validation of machine learning models for gouty arthritis classification using routine clinical variables: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gouty arthritis(GA) is a common crystal-induced inflammatory arthropathy influenced by inflammatory, metabolic, renal, hematologic, demographic, and lifestyle-related factors. Because serum uric acid alone may not fully characterize GA in routine clinical settings, integrative models based on routinely available variables may improve disease classification. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 7,383 eligible adult participants from the electronic medical record database of the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Chinese Medicine between September 1, 2020 and February 1, 2026. GA cases were retrospectively reconstructed according to the 2015 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification framework, and non-gout comparators were drawn from a contemporaneous heterogeneous hospital population. Missing predictor values were handled using multiple imputation by chained equations after stratified training/test splitting. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression was used for feature selection. Four supervised learning algorithms were developed and internally evaluated using a 7:3 hold-out design, with cross-validation-based tuning within the training set. Model performance was assessed using discrimination, calibration, decision curve analysis, and confusion matrices. Results: Among the four models, random forest showed the best overall performance. In the training set, it achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.8995, accuracy of 0.7062, sensitivity of 0.9623, positive predictive value of 0.6094, and negative predictive value of 0.9419. In the test set, it remained the best-performing model, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.8686, accuracy of 0.6980, sensitivity of 0.9442, positive predictive value of 0.6048, and negative predictive value of 0.9163. Support vector machine ranked second, whereas k-nearest neighbors and logistic regression showed weaker discrimination. Conclusions: A machine-learning model based on routinely available hospital variables, particularly random forest, showed favorable internal discrimination for GA classification and outperformed conventional logistic regression. These findings support its use as a preliminary screening-oriented classification aid rather than a stand-alone diagnostic tool. External validation remains necessary before broader clinical deployment.
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.