ArticleLupus science & medicine2026
Development and temporal validation of a clinical prediction model to identify bacterial infection in hospitalised patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Article in Lupus science & 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and temporally validate a clinical prediction model for identifying bacterial infection (BI) among hospitalised patients with SLE.
methodsWe retrospectively included hospitalised patients with SLE admitted for BI or active disease between January 2023 and January 2026. Admissions from January 2023 to January 2025 formed the training cohort, and admissions from February 2025 to January 2026 formed the temporal validation cohort. BI included infection with or without concomitant active SLE; non-infected active (NA) SLE was the comparator. Candidate predictors were prespecified according to clinical relevance, prior literature, routine availability and missingness. LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator) regression was applied across imputed datasets, and final coefficients were estimated using multivariable logistic regression and pooled using Rubin's rules. Performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, full-workflow bootstrap internal validation, same-centre temporal validation and decision curve analysis.
resultsThe training cohort included 395 admissions (170 BI, 225 NA), and the validation cohort included 200 admissions (75 BI, 125 NA). The final model included age, disease duration, previous hospitalisation for BI, fever, white cell count, C reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, C4 hypocomplementemia and ordinal SLE-DAS (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Score) category. Training area under the curve (AUC) was 0.869 (95% CI 0.833 to 0.905), exceeding CRP (0.771), procalcitonin (0.682) and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate/C reactive protein (ESR/CRP) ratio (0.736). Full-workflow bootstrap validation yielded an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.837 and corrected Brier score of 0.162. Same-centre temporal validation showed stable discrimination (AUC 0.852, 95% CI 0.794 to 0.910), acceptable calibration and preserved net benefit.
conclusionsA routinely available, interpretable model identified BI among hospitalised patients with SLE using NA SLE as the comparator. C4 hypocomplementemia and higher SLE-DAS categories should be interpreted as markers of disease activity predominance rather than protective factors against infection. Multicentre external validation and clinical impact studies are required.
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.