Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30460455›Full record

ArticleNeuroinformatics2019

Model-Based and Model-Free Techniques for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Diagnostic Prediction and Patient Clustering.

Ming Tang, Chao Gao, Stephen A Goutman, Alexandr Kalinin, Bhramar Mukherjee, Yuanfang Guan, Ivo D Dinov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. New directions in clinical trials for frontotemporal lobar degeneration: Methods and outcome measures.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2020
    Article
  17. ALS/SURV: a modification of the CAFS statistic.Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ming TangStatistics Online Computational Resource, Department of Health Behavior and Biological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Chao GaoStatistics Online Computational Resource, Department of Health Behavior and Biological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Stephen A GoutmanDepartment of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Alexandr KalininStatistics Online Computational Resource, Department of Health Behavior and Biological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Bhramar MukherjeeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Yuanfang GuanDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Ivo D DinovStatistics Online Computational Resource, Department of Health Behavior and Biological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. statistics@umich.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3825-4375

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
Pilot and Feasibility (P and F) ProgramP30DK089503 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Joyce Lee · 2010 to 2026
$20.3M
TrainingU54EB020406 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI TOGA, ARTHUR W · 2014 to 2018
$12.5M
Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Core CenterP30AG053760 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI PAULSON, HENRY L · 2016 to 2020
$10.1M
Public Outreach and Education CoreP50NS091856 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ALBIN, ROGER L · 2014 to 2019
$10.1M
Pilot Projects CoreP20NR015331 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LARSON, JANET L. · 2014 to 2018
$1.3M
Impact of Geospatial Factors and Environmental Pollutants on Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in the State of MichiganK23ES027221 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GOUTMAN, STEPHEN · 2017 to 2021
$1.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240NIA NIH HHS P30 AG053760NIBIB NIH HHS U54 EB020406NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK089503NIEHS NIH HHS K23 ES027221NINDS NIH HHS P50 NS091856NINR NIH HHS P20 NR015331
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a complex progressive neurodegenerative disorder with an estimated prevalence of about 5 per 100,000 people in the United States. In this study, the ALS disease progression is measured by the change of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS) score over time. The study aims to provide clinical decision support for timely forecasting of the ALS trajectory as well as accurate and reproducible computable phenotypic clustering of participants. Patient data are extracted from DREAM-Phil Bowen ALS Prediction Prize4Life Challenge data, most of which are from the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials Database (PRO-ACT) archive. We employed model-based and model-free machine-learning methods to predict the change of the ALSFRS score over time. Using training and testing data we quantified and compared the performance of different techniques. We also used unsupervised machine learning methods to cluster the patients into separate computable phenotypes and interpret the derived subcohorts. Direct prediction of univariate clinical outcomes based on model-based (linear models) or model-free (machine learning based techniques - random forest and Bayesian adaptive regression trees) was only moderately successful. The correlation coefficients between clinically observed changes in ALSFRS scores relative to the model-based/model-free predicted counterparts were 0.427 (random forest) and 0.545(BART). The reliability of these results were assessed using internal statistical cross validation and well as external data validation. Unsupervised clustering generated very reliable and consistent partitions of the patient cohort into four computable phenotypic subgroups. These clusters were explicated by identifying specific salient clinical features included in the PRO-ACT archive that discriminate between the derived subcohorts. There are differences between alternative analytical methods in forecasting specific clinical phenotypes. Although predicting univariate clinical outcomes may be challenging, our results suggest that modern data science strategies are useful in clustering patients and generating evidence-based ALS hypotheses about complex interactions of multivariate factors. Predicting univariate clinical outcomes using the PRO-ACT data yields only marginal accuracy (about 70%). However, unsupervised clustering of participants into sub-groups generates stable, reliable and consistent (exceeding 95%) computable phenotypes whose explication requires interpretation of multivariate sets of features. HIGHLIGHTS: • Used a large ALS data archive of 8,000 patients consisting of 3 million records, including 200 clinical features tracked over 12 months. • Employed model-based and model-free methods to predict ALSFRS changes over time, cluster patients into cohorts, and derive computable phenotypes. • Research findings include stable, reliable, and consistent (95%) patient stratification into computable phenotypes. However, clinical explication of the results requires interpretation of multivariate information. Graphical Abstract ᅟ.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionMachine LearningAdultAmyotrophic Lateral SclerosisBayes TheoremCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsALSAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisBig dataData scienceDecision supportMachine learningPredictive analytics

Identifiers

PMID30460455
PMCPMC6527505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.