ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
A machine learning approach to identify at-risk populations for yellow fever vaccination.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vaccinations play a crucial role in public and personal health. Vaccines such as the Yellow Fever 17D vaccine are effective at preventing disease and provide lifelong immunity with few adverse events. Leveraging the increase in electronic medical records and the widespread use of machine learning algorithms in healthcare, this study aims to investigate and develop an algorithmic framework for analyzing clinical data on Yellow Fever 17D vaccinations in order to predict at-risk populations for adverse events following immunizations. This research incorporates parameters from the patient's medical history and demographic information. Methods: To build our analytic framework, we tested five machine learning algorithms: random forest, gradient boost, logistic regression, XGBoost, and Bernoulli naïve Bayes. We cleaned and managed the datasets through EHRchitect software. We assessed the performance of the algorithms using standard metrics, including precision, recall, F1-scores, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Additionally, we implemented population sampling to mitigate potential biases common in clinical data and performed parameter ranking analysis to identify the most influential features in classifying patient reaction outcomes. Results: We found that logistic regression produced the highest performance, and through hyperparameter optimization, we developed a framework with precision, accuracy, and ROC scores of 87.7%, 99.0%, and 0.818, respectively. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study examined five modeling algorithms to establish a framework for analyzing real-world data and to predict at-risk populations for adverse events following immunization. We incorporated a logistic regression algorithm to assess our clinical data to achieve a high-precision performance model for classifying patient predictions.
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.