ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Machine learning-based prediction model for chronic brucellosis: a multi-feature approach using clinical and laboratory data.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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.
- Differentiating scrub typhus meningitis from brucellar meningitis in children: A single-center retrospective study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Development of a predictive model based on ultrasonographic features of brucella-associated periarthritis of the shoulder.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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: Chronic progression is a major clinical challenge in human brucellosis (HB), affecting nearly one-third of patients and leading to long-term disability. Reliable early prediction tools are lacking, hindering timely risk stratification and individualized management. This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models to predict chronic progression using routinely available clinical and laboratory data. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 555 patients with confirmed brucellosis admitted between 2019 and 2024. Clinical characteristics and laboratory indicators at admission were collected. Feature selection was performed using Boruta and recursive feature elimination. Six supervised ML models (random forest [RF], LightGBM, XGBoost, logistic regression [LR], multilayer perceptron [MLP], and support vector machine [SVM]) were constructed and evaluated by discrimination, calibration, clinical utility, and predictive metrics. Model interpretability was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), and a web-based prediction tool was developed. Results: Of 555 patients, 144 (25.9%) progressed to chronic brucellosis. Compared with the recovery group, chronic cases presented more frequently with arthralgia and arthritis and showed distinct biochemical profiles, including lower alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), triglycerides (TG), and higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), albumin (ALB), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and uric acid (UA). Among the six models, RF consistently demonstrated the most robust performance across metrics, achieving the highest AUC in the test set (0.782, 95% CI: 0.701 - 0.856), superior calibration (Emax = 0.155), and the greatest net clinical benefit in decision curve analysis. SHAP analysis identified TG, HDL-C, UA, eosinophil count, PA, ALT, BUN, and GLB as the most influential predictors, with biologically plausible associations. Conclusion: Using eight routinely available variables, the RF model demonstrated moderate discrimination with well-calibrated probability estimates but limited sensitivity. The tool may assist early risk stratification of chronic brucellosis when combined with clinical judgment; however, its predictive performance should be interpreted cautiously until validated in external, multicenter, and prospective studies.
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.