↓ Skip to main content

Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis to predict influenza in primary care patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis to predict influenza in primary care patients
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1839-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard K. Zimmerman, G. K. Balasubramani, Mary Patricia Nowalk, Heather Eng, Leonard Urbanski, Michael L. Jackson, Lisa A. Jackson, Huong Q. McLean, Edward A. Belongia, Arnold S. Monto, Ryan E. Malosh, Manjusha Gaglani, Lydia Clipper, Brendan Flannery, Stephen R. Wisniewski

Abstract

The use of neuraminidase-inhibiting anti-viral medication to treat influenza is relatively infrequent. Rapid, cost-effective methods for diagnosing influenza are needed to enable appropriate prescribing. Multi-viral respiratory panels using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays to diagnose influenza are accurate but expensive and more time-consuming than low sensitivity rapid influenza tests. Influenza clinical decision algorithms are both rapid and inexpensive, but most are based on regression analyses that do not account for higher order interactions. This study used classification and regression trees (CART) modeling to estimate probabilities of influenza. Eligible enrollees ≥ 5 years old (n = 4,173) who presented at ambulatory centers for treatment of acute respiratory illness (≤7 days) with cough or fever in 2011-2012, provided nasal and pharyngeal swabs for PCR testing for influenza, information on demographics, symptoms, personal characteristics and self-reported influenza vaccination status. Antiviral medication was prescribed for just 15 % of those with PCR-confirmed influenza. An algorithm that included fever, cough, and fatigue had sensitivity of 84 %, specificity of 48 %, positive predictive value (PPV) of 23 % and negative predictive value (NPV) of 94 % for the development sample. The CART algorithm has good sensitivity and high NPV, but low PPV for identifying influenza among outpatients ≥5 years. Thus, it is good at identifying a group who do not need testing or antivirals and had fair to good predictive performance for influenza. Further testing of the algorithm in other influenza seasons would help to optimize decisions for lab testing or treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 7 6%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Computer Science 13 11%
Engineering 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Mathematics 5 4%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 39 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,829,320
of 23,335,153 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,714
of 7,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,569
of 322,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#160
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,335,153 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.