Evidence Hub

Machine learning-based derivation and validation of three immune phenotypes for risk stratification and prognosis in community-acquired pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study

Qiangqiang Qin, Haiyang Yu, Jie Zhao, Xue Xu, Qingxuan Li, Wen Gu, Xuejun Guo

Frontiers in Immunology, 2024

1,156 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Background The clinical presentation of Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in hospitalized patients exhibits heterogeneity. Inflammation and immune responses play significant roles in CAP development. However, research on immunophenotypes in CAP patients is limited, with few machine learning (ML) models analyzing immune indicators. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Xinhua Hospital, affiliated with Shanghai Jiaotong University. Patients meeting predefined criteria were included and unsupervised clustering was used to identify phenotypes. Patients with distinct phenotypes were also compared in different outcomes. By machine learning methods, we comprehensively assess the disease severity of CAP patients. Results A total of 1156 CAP patients were included in this research. In the training cohort (n=809), we identified three immune phenotypes among patients: Phenotype A (42.0%), Phenotype B (40.2%), and Phenotype C (17.8%), with Phenotype C corresponding to more severe disease. Similar results can be observed in the validation cohort. The optimal prognostic model, SuperPC, achieved the highest average C-index of 0.859. For predicting CAP severity, the random forest model was highly accurate, with C-index of 0.998 and 0.794 in training and validation cohorts, respectively. Conclusion CAP patients can be categorized into three distinct immune phenotypes, each with prognostic relevance. Machine learning exhibits potential in predicting mortality and disease…

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: 1,156 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