ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Development of a clinical prediction model for poor treatment outcomes in the intensive phase in patients with initial treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical epidemiology and risk prediction of unsuccessful treatment outcomes in pulmonary tuberculosis with diabetes mellitus.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting unfavorable treatment outcomes in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A prediction model is hereby developed to identify poor treatment outcomes during the intensive phase in patients with initial treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Methods: The data of inpatients with pulmonary TB were collected from a tertiary hospital located in Southeastern China from July 2019 to December 2023. The included patients were divided into the modeling group and the validation group. The outcome indicator was based on a comparison of pulmonary CT findings before and after the two-month intensive phase of anti-TB treatment. In the modeling group, the independent risk factors of pulmonary TB patients were obtained through logistic regression analysis and then a prediction model was established. The discriminative ability (the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic, AUC), its calibration (GiViTI calibration chart), and its clinical applicability (decision curve analysis, DCA) were respectively evaluated. In addition, the prediction effectiveness was compared with that of the machine learning model. Results: A total of 1,625 patients were included in this study, and 343 patients had poor treatment outcomes in the intensive phase of anti-TB treatment. Logistic regression analysis identified several independent risk factors for poor treatment outcomes, including diabetes, cavities in the lungs, tracheobronchial TB, increased C-reactive protein, and decreased hemoglobin. The AUC values were 0.815 for the modeling group and 0.851 for the validation group. In the machine learning models, the AUC values of the random forest model and the integrated model were 0.821 and 0.835, respectively. Conclusion: The prediction model established in this study presents good performance in predicting poor treatment outcomes during the intensive phase in patients with pulmonary TB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.