Considering patient clinical history impacts performance of machine learning models in predicting course of multiple sclerosis.
Clicks: 301
ID: 100940
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
301 views
39 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #939 of 2,056 articles by views in PloS one
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 2,056 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Multiple Sclerosis (MS) progresses at an unpredictable rate, but predictions on the disease course in each patient would be extremely useful to tailor therapy to the individual needs. We explore different machine learning (ML) approaches to predict whether a patient will shift from the initial Relapsing-Remitting (RR) to the Secondary Progressive (SP) form of the disease, using only "real world" data available in clinical routine. The clinical records of 1624 outpatients (207 in the SP phase) attending the MS service of Sant'Andrea hospital, Rome, Italy, were used. Predictions at 180, 360 or 720 days from the last visit were obtained considering either the data of the last available visit (Visit-Oriented setting), comparing four classical ML methods (Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbours and AdaBoost) or the whole clinical history of each patient (History-Oriented setting), using a Recurrent Neural Network model, specifically designed for historical data. Missing values were handled by removing either all clinical records presenting at least one missing parameter (Feature-saving approach) or the 3 clinical parameters which contained missing values (Record-saving approach). The performances of the classifiers were rated using common indicators, such as Recall (or Sensitivity) and Precision (or Positive predictive value). In the visit-oriented setting, the Record-saving approach yielded Recall values from 70% to 100%, but low Precision (5% to 10%), which however increased to 50% when considering only predictions for which the model returned a probability above a given "confidence threshold". For the History-oriented setting, both indicators increased as prediction time lengthened, reaching values of 67% (Recall) and 42% (Precision) at 720 days. We show how "real world" data can be effectively used to forecast the evolution of MS, leading to high Recall values and propose innovative approaches to improve Precision towards clinically useful values.
| Reference Key |
seccia2020consideringplos
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Seccia, Ruggiero;Gammelli, Daniele;Dominici, Fabio;Romano, Silvia;Landi, Anna Chiara;Salvetti, Marco;Tacchella, Andrea;Zaccaria, Andrea;Crisanti, Andrea;Grassi, Francesca;Palagi, Laura; |
| Journal | PloS one |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
10.1371/journal.pone.0230219
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.