ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2026
Development of a Machine Learning Algorithm for Differential Diagnosis Between Primary Immune Thrombocytopenia and Connective Tissue Disease-Related Thrombocytopenia in Pediatric Patients.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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
backgroundTo develop a machine learning model for early differentiation of primary immune thrombocytopenia (pITP) from connective tissue disease-related thrombocytopenia (CTD-TP) in children presenting with thrombocytopenia.
methodA retrospective study was conducted on 387 newly diagnosed children with thrombocytopenia. All patients were clinically diagnosed and divided into a training set and a test set in a 7:3 ratio. Six machine learning algorithms, including XGboost, RF, SVM, LR, GBDT, BPNN, were used to establish differential diagnostic models for pITP and CTD-TP. The model performance was evaluated by accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Explain the importance and contribution of model feature variables through the Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) method.
resultA total of 387 patients were included in the study, including 347 cases of pITP and 40 cases of CTD-TP. Based on the above evaluation indicators, the BPNN model had the best performance, with an F1 score of 0.95, an accuracy rate of 94.87%, and an AUC of 0.9738. According to the SHAP value, the top 10 influencing factors were selected as age, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, antinuclear antibodies, IgM, Complement C3, T + B + NK%, B cells, body weight, complement C4, lymphocyte count.
conclusionThe successful construction of the pITP and CTD-TP identification models shows that BPNN has the best performance and can provide clinical strategies for early disease identification based on the importance of its variables.
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.