Chrome Extension
WeChat Mini Program
Use on ChatGLM

Diagnostic Prediction Model for Tuberculous Meningitis: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

Anna M Stadelman-Behar,Nicki Tiffin, Jayne Ellis, Fiona V Creswell,Kenneth Ssebambulidde,Edwin Nuwagira,Lauren Richards, Vittoria Lutje, Adriana Hristea, Raluca Elena Jipa, José E Vidal, Renata G S Azevedo, Sérgio Monteiro de Almeida, Gislene Botão Kussen,Keite Nogueira, Felipe Augusto Souza Gualberto, Tatiana Metcalf, Anna Dorothee Heemskerk,Tarek Dendane, Abidi Khalid,Amine Ali Zeggwagh,Kathleen Bateman, Uwe Siebert,Ursula Rochau,Arjan van Laarhoven, Reinout van Crevel,Ahmad Rizal Ganiem,Sofiati Dian,Joseph Jarvis,Joseph Donovan,Thuong Nguyen Thuy Thuong, Guy E Thwaites, Nathan C Bahr, David B Meya, David R Boulware,Tom H Boyles

The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene(2024)

Cited 0|Views0
No score
Abstract
No accurate and rapid diagnostic test exists for tuberculous meningitis (TBM), leading to delayed diagnosis. We leveraged data from multiple studies to improve the predictive performance of diagnostic models across different populations, settings, and subgroups to develop a new predictive tool for TBM diagnosis. We conducted a systematic review to analyze eligible datasets with individual-level participant data (IPD). We imputed missing data and explored three approaches: stepwise logistic regression, classification and regression tree (CART), and random forest regression. We evaluated performance using calibration plots and C-statistics via internal-external cross-validation. We included 3,761 individual participants from 14 studies and nine countries. A total of 1,240 (33%) participants had "definite" (30%) or "probable" (3%) TBM by case definition. Important predictive variables included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) glucose, blood glucose, CSF white cell count, CSF differential, cryptococcal antigen, HIV status, and fever presence. Internal validation showed that performance varied considerably between IPD datasets with C-statistic values between 0.60 and 0.89. In external validation, CART performed the worst (C = 0.82), and logistic regression and random forest had the same accuracy (C = 0.91). We developed a mobile app for TBM clinical prediction that accounted for heterogeneity and improved diagnostic performance (https://tbmcalc.github.io/tbmcalc). Further external validation is needed.
More
Translated text
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined