Evidence Hub

Metabolomic machine learning predictor for the diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia

Yu-Qi Liu, Fan-Sen Lin, Liang-Hui Chen, Yi-Fei Liu, Jia-Lin Fan, Qian-Wen Li, Jing-Yu Jiang, Wei Zhu et al.

European Journal of Medical Research, 2026

175 participants

Abstract

Aspiration pneumonia (AP) is a common disease, particularly among the elderly, and is diagnostically challenging due to its non-specific presentation and lack of a diagnostic gold standard or reliable biomarkers. Metabolomics may enable accurate non-invasive diagnosis. To address this gap, this study aims to develop and validate metabolomic machine learning models for AP diagnosis within a multicenter prospective observational cohort.

We enrolled 121 patients (Cohort 1) with AP or non-aspiration pneumonia (NonAP), nearly all of whom were from the intensive care unit. Non-targeted metabolomic profiling of serum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and sputum was performed using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Machine learning models were constructed for each biofluid. We also measured peripheral blood cytokines and built corresponding diagnostic models, against which the performance of the metabolomic models was compared. The optimal serum model was subsequently validated using targeted metabolomics in 175 patients.

In Cohort 1, distinct metabolic profiles distinguished AP from NonAP patients across all sample types. The serum-based model demonstrated superior diagnostic performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.973) compared to bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and sputum models. A cytokine-only model performed poorly (AUROC 0.700), and integrating cytokines with metabolomics did not improve accuracy. Consequently, the serum biomarker panel…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 175 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free