ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Development and validation of a diagnostic model for malignant pleural effusion based on random forest.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The timely and accurate identification of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is crucial for prompt treatment. The current diagnostic approaches based on cytology, pathology, or biomarkers have inherent limitations; notably, the drawbacks of single indicators can be overcome by combining various indicators. Accordingly, the present study was designed to construct a machine learning (ML) model integrating pleural effusion (PE) and peripheral blood indicators to identify MPE. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 1,239 adult participants with PE who underwent diagnostic thoracentesis and then eligible participants were randomly assigned to training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Demographic data, laboratory variables, and systemic inflammatory indicators were analyzed. After feature selection by Boruta and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, we constructed five ML models, including multivariable logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting, and k-nearest neighbors. The predictive performance of each model was comprehensively evaluated using multiple metrics, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis. In addition, Shapley additive explanations and Gini importance were applied to interpret each model. Results: Among the employed ML models, the RF model achieved optimal performance. Following further importance analysis, the eight-feature RF model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.940, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and F1 score of 0.875, 0.835, 0.882, 0.826, 0.858, and 0.878, respectively. These key features included PE-adenosine deaminase, carcinoembryonic antigen, PE-cell count, PE-total protein, PE-percentage of mononuclear cells, age, PE-lactate dehydrogenase, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio. Conclusions: We developed and validated an interpretable and accurate eight-feature RF model for MPE identification with an AUC of 0.940. This model provides a valuable approach for MPE differential diagnosis.
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.