Back

Predicting Mechanical Ventilation Requirement in Guillain-Barre Syndrome using a Multi-Functional Machine Learning Algorithm

Guo, J.; Younis, Y.

2026-07-01 neurology
10.64898/2026.06.29.26356838 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: To develop and validate multiple Machine Learning (ML) algorithms that predict Mechanical Ventilation (MV) requirement in Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and to determine whether they outperform the additive, score-based prognostic models in current use. Methods: This retrospective study analysed 233 GBS patients (training set, n = 186; validation set, n = 47). Five algorithms (Deep Neural Network (DNN), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Naive Bayes (NB)) were trained and compared. Predictors were chosen by a three-method consensus pipeline executed inside each nested cross-validation fold, retaining 11 features. Whether BorderlineSMOTE was applied was determined per model by Optuna hyperparameter tuning. Hyperparameter tuning, probability calibration, and bootstrap resampling were applied; performance used accuracy, recall, F1, specificity, AUROC, and Brier score, with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) for model interpretability. Results: XGBoost achieved the strongest clinical performance (AUROC 0.807, accuracy 0.787, and recall 0.857), exceeding the validated EGRIS for MV (AUROC = 0.62). Calibration preserved recall (0.857) and shifted the operating point by one false positive while lowering the Brier score from 0.210 to 0.110 (naive Brier baseline 0.127, BSS = 0.134), so the deployed tool was developed using the probabilities from the calibrated XGBoost model. Consensus selection retained eleven predictors; blood prealbumin, blood FT3, and NLR ranked highest by both embedded importance and SHAP. The model was deployed as an interactive prognostic tool predicting MV risk at admission. Conclusions: ML algorithms substantially improve GBS prognosis by integrating eleven biomarker predictors, modelling nonlinear relationships, and providing SHAP-based interpretability. The single-centre sample is small, so external validation in larger, multi-centre cohorts is required before clinical deployment.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.0%
2
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.8%
3
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
4
Critical Care Explorations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.6%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 23%
4.4%
6
Emergency Medicine Journal
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
7
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
8
European Journal of Neurology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
9
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
10
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
11
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
12
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
13
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.1%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
15
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
16
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
17
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
18
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
19
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
Brain Communications
166 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
22
CHEST
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
23
Biomedicines
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
24
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
25
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
26
The Journal of Pediatrics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
27
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.9%
28
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
29
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
30
European Heart Journal
22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%