ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Construction of an auxiliary diagnostic model for secondary pulmonary bacterial infection in influenza based on routine detection indicators.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the feasibility of establishing an auxiliary diagnostic model for secondary pulmonary bacterial infection in influenza using routine indicators from fever clinics.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 510 influenza cases (divided into modeling and validation sets in a 7:3 ratio) was conducted, with an additional 72 cases selected for external validation. Logistic regression was adopted as the traditional diagnostic model, while two machine learning models (decision tree and random forest) were constructed using R4.2.3 software. The diagnostic performance of each model was evaluated using multiple indicators, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under the curve (AUC).
resultsAmong the 357 influenza patients in the modeling set, 101 developed secondary pulmonary bacterial infection, while 256 did not. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A, creatine kinase isoenzyme, and D-dimer were independent risk factors for secondary pulmonary bacterial infection (all P<0.05). In the modeling set, validation set, and external validation set, the machine learning model generally outperformed the logistic regression model in all diagnostic performance metrics. The random forest model performed exceptionally well on all three datasets, with AUC values of 0.951, 0.902, and 0.852, respectively.
conclusionIn auxiliary diagnostic models constructed based on routine fever clinic testing indicators, machine learning models, especially the random forest model, demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy and good generalization ability for influenza-related secondary pulmonary bacterial infection.
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.