ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Machine learning prediction of postoperative pulmonary infection in patients who underwent thoracoscopic lung cancer resection: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
Abstract
backgroundAccurate identification of patients at high risk of pulmonary infection after thoracoscopic lung cancer resection is important for timely and targeted preventive measures. Methods for determining the risk of pulmonary infection after thoracoscopic lung cancer resection have not been well studied.
methodsThis study was a retrospective case-control research project. The information of 3219 hospitalised patients who underwent thoracoscopic lung cancer resection between January 2019 and December 2023 was obtained from the hospital electronic medical record system. 26 clinical characteristics were obtained from medical and nursing records. The variables were screened using the least absolute contraction and selection operator (LASSO) regression, and the risk prediction models for pulmonary infection after thoracoscopic lung cancer resection was constructed using the following 5 machine learning algorithms: logistic regression model (LR), artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF) and eXtreme gradient boosting (XGB). The model was evaluated using the following metrics: the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and F1 score (F1). Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) was used to interpret the machine learning models.
resultsThere were 3219 enrolled patients, 2203 (70%) of whom were assigned to the training cohort and 966 (30%) of whom were assigned to the validation cohort. The AUC range of the five models was 0.883-0.951. The XGB model outperformed the others, with an AUC of 0.951 (95% confidence interval: 0.943-0.964), accuracy of 0.902 (95% confidence interval: 0.886-0.913), sensitivity of 0.927, specificity of 0.864, positive predictive value of 0.898, negative predictive value of 0.824, precision of 0.908, recall of 0.872 and F1 score of 0.815 in the validation group. The model's prediction performance in the 45-65 age group was the best. The AUC of the logistic regression model was 0.948 (95% confidence interval: 0.931-0.957). We transformed the logistic regression model into a nomogram to help clinicians visualise the model and make them more likely to use it to identify the risk of pulmonary infection after thoracoscopic surgery in lung cancer patients.
conclusionsThe establishment of a risk prediction model based on machine learning can help clinical nursing staff identify high-risk patients for pulmonary infection after thoracoscopic lung cancer resection. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.