ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Predictive model for ulcerative colitis therapeutic response using clinical indicators and peripheral blood T-cell subsets.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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
Objective: This study aimed to integrate clinical indicators with peripheral blood T-cell subsets to develop a prediction model for ulcerative colitis (UC), and to facilitate precise subtyping and individualized treatment decisions. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 346 UC patients (June 2023-June 2025) was randomly assigned to training (n=242) and validation (n=104) sets at a 7:3 ratio. Univariate analysis, Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent influencing factors. Machine learning models-random forest (RF), gradient boosting, and logistic regression-were constructed using the selected core variables. Model discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: According to week-14 response criteria, the training set comprised 158 responders (65.3%) and 84 non-responders (34.7%). Six indicators significantly associated with treatment response: albumin, C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), CD3+CD4+CD25+/CD3+CD4+ T-lymphocyte ratio, and CD4/CD8 ratio were as independent influencing factors. Among the models, RF exhibited the highest numerical AUC, with an AUC of 0.852 in the training set and 0.804 in the validation set. The calibration curve demonstrated good agreement between predicted and actual risks. DCA indicated higher net clinical benefit within a risk threshold range of 0.1-0.8. Conclusion: A predictive model for UC treatment response based on clinical indicators and peripheral blood T-cell subsets was constructed and validated, and may serves as an exploratory tool for individualized treatment decisions in UC.
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.