Evidence Hub

Quantifying clinical indicators for identifying and prognosticating aspiration pneumonia in Chinese geriatric patients: a retrospective cohort study integrating multivariable regression and interpretable machine learning

Wei-Tao Cao, Lin Xie, Gang Xu, Zhaoxing Lu, Yudong Hu, Zhu-Xiang Zhao, Qing Li, Wei Ma et al.

Frontiers in Medicine, 2026

295 participants

Abstract

Objective Aspiration pneumonia (AP) substantially increases mortality risk among elderly patients, necessitating prompt diagnostic recognition and prognostic stratification. However, standardized diagnostic criteria and prognostic markers remain elusive. This investigation seeks to quantify high-contribution clinical parameters for the diagnosis and evaluation of AP prognosis, elucidate nonlinear risk interactions, and establish a comprehensive risk stratification framework tailored for Chinese geriatric populations. Methods This retrospective cohort analysis (2017–2018) enrolled 295 patients with pneumonia (aged 65–98 years) from Guangzhou First People’s Hospital. The exposure variable was the diagnosis of AP, with the primary endpoints being 3-month mortality and recurrence rates. The adjustment variables encompassed demographic characteristics, comorbidities, biomarkers, and functional status. A dual-modeling approach was implemented: (1) multivariable multinomial logistic regression; (2) interpretable random forest algorithms incorporating SHAP/PDP analyses. Results Conventional analytical approaches demonstrated significantly elevated 3-month mortality (17.3% vs. 5.9%) and recurrence rates (42.3% vs. 17.8%) in the AP cohort (both p 15 days and Barthel Index ≤2, along with nonlinear interaction effects between antibiotic duration and Barthel score; antibiotic duration was interpreted as a clinical-course marker rather than a causal factor. Additionally, prognostic…

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: 295 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