ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Machine learning models based on laboratory data: new insight into the differential diagnosis of tuberculous and viral meningitis.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The differential diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) and viral meningitis (VM) remains a formidable clinical challenge. This study aims to develop machine learning (ML) models and a nomogram for differentiating between TBM and VM. Methods: Clinical and laboratory data were collected from 558 participants, including 190 TBM patients and 368 VM patients, treated between 2000 and 2024 at Xijing Hospital. Resampling techniques were employed to balance the dataset. Four feature selection methods (RFECV-ADA, Boruta, Spearman, MI) were utilized to identify potential indicators. Two supervised ML algorithms were implemented for model development. Model performance was evaluated with the area under the curve, as well as sensitivity (SEN), specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. The influence of each feature was visualized with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) diagrams. Finally, a nomogram was created from the selected features. Results: Ten features were identified, including the mean corpuscular volume, hemoglobin, D-Dimer level, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) glucose, protein, immunoglobulin G, A, M, chloride, and albumin levels. The ENN-XgBoost_V10 model demonstrated the highest SEN of 75.79%, in differentiating TBM from VM and a SEN of 81.45% in patients with at least five leucocytes per μL of CSF and a CSF-to-blood glucose ratio less than 0.5. According to SHAP analysis, the significance of these features in prediction was underscored. Calibration curve analysis indicated that the nomogram predictions were relatively similar to the actual outcomes. Conclusions: Based on ten routine laboratory tests, the ENN-XgBoost_V10 model differentiates TBM from VM with superior SEN to traditional methods.
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.