ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Machine learning-based prognostic prediction model of pneumonia-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.
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.
- Diagnostic Models of Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Congenital Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploration of the correlation between clinical indicators and prognosis in hospitalized children with pneumonia and construction of a risk prediction model based on machine learning algorithms.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to construct a machine learning predictive model for prognostic analysis of patients with p- ARDS. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 230 patients with p- ARDS admitted to the RICU of the second affiliated hospital of Chongqing Medical University from January 2020 to November 2024 were included. Patients were divided into survival group and death group according to the 28-day prognosis results. All patients' clinical data were first results within 24 h of admission. 20% of the total samples were randomly selected as the test set, and the remaining samples were used as the training set for crossvalidation, and six different models were constructed, including Logistic Regression, Random Forest, NaiveBayes, SVM, XGBoost and Adaboost. The AUC value, AP value, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, Brier score, and F 1 score were used to evaluate the performance of the models and pick the optimal model. Finally, the SHAP feature importance map was drawn to explain the optimal model. Results: 10 key variables, namely LAR, Lac, pH, age, PO2/FiO2, ALB, BMI, TP, PT, DBIL were screened using the filtration method. The importance ranking of the variables showed that age was the most important variable. Among the six algorithms, the performance of the SVM algorithm is significantly better than that of other algorithms. The AUC, AP, Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, Brier Score, and F1 Scores in the test set were 0.77, 0.67, 0.74, 0.60, 0.81, 0.19, and 0.60, respectively. This indicates the potential value of machine learning models in predicting the prognosis of patients with p- ARDS. Conclusion: This study developed and visualized a machine learning model constructed based on 10 common clinical features for predicting 28-day mortality in patients with p- ARDS. The model shows good predictive performance and achieves explanatory analysis in combination with SHAP and LIME methods, providing a reliable mortality risk assessment tool for p- ARDS.
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.