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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.