ArticleBlood advances2026
Risk factors for pediatric acute chest syndrome using machine learning techniques.
Article in Blood advances, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractAcute chest syndrome (ACS) causes significant morbidity and mortality in both adult and pediatric patients with sickle cell disease. Despite known risk factors for developing ACS, this complication is often unexpected. We hypothesized that a machine learning model could predict progression to ACS in children. A random forest model was used using the Scikit-Learn Python library. Prediction performance was assessed using the C-statistic, sensitivity, and specificity. The features included are demographics, vital signs, laboratory values, medication orders, and additional comorbidities. The positive cohort developed ACS on diagnosis or during admission, and the negative cohort did not. A total of 3223 encounters were included in the model for training and testing. Up to 65% of the positive cohort developed ACS 24 hours after admission. The model had a sensitivity of 65.1% and specificity of 77.4% at the cutoff point of 0.6. For diagnosing ACS, the negative predictive value was 89.8%, and the positive predictive value was 42.3%. For the correct positive cases, the model predicted ACS a median of 18 hours before the diagnosis was determined in the electronic health record. The features that were important included pulse, respiratory rate, presence of hypoxia, temperature, neutrophil count, and use of pain medications. Despite the model's limitations, it is, to our knowledge, the first model using machine learning techniques to predict ACS in children. Detecting patients who are at higher risk of ACS could affect the approach to acute care management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42628035What 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.