Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30608929›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Machine learning models to predict disease progression among veterans with hepatitis C virus.

Monica A Konerman, Lauren A Beste, Tony Van, Boang Liu, Xuefei Zhang, Ji Zhu, Sameer D Saini, Grace L Su, Brahmajee K Nallamothu, George N Ioannou and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Artificial intelligence for hepatitis evaluation.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Monica A KonermanMichigan Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8381-6149
Lauren A BesteDepartment of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Tony VanVA Ann Arbor Health Services Research and Development Center of Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Boang LiuDepartment of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.
Xuefei ZhangDepartment of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.
Ji ZhuDepartment of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.
Sameer D SainiMichigan Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Grace L SuMichigan Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Brahmajee K NallamothuMichigan Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
George N IoannouDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Akbar K WaljeeMichigan Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1964-8790
Health Services Research & Development · USUniversity of Michigan · USMichigan United · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

University of Michigan Center for Gastrointestinal ResearchP30DK034933 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI OWYANG, CHUNG · 1986 to 2021
$22.5M
Advanced Prediction Models to Optimize Treatment and Access for Veterans with Hepatitis CI01HX002220 · VA · VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION · PI WALJEE, AKBAR K · 2018 to 2021
–
HSRD VA I01 HX002220NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK034933
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) algorithms provide effective ways to build prediction models using longitudinal information given their capacity to incorporate numerous predictor variables without compromising the accuracy of the risk prediction. Clinical risk prediction models in chronic hepatitis C virus (CHC) can be challenging due to non-linear nature of disease progression. We developed and compared two ML algorithms to predict cirrhosis development in a large CHC-infected cohort using longitudinal data. METHODS AND

findingsWe used national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data to identify CHC patients in care between 2000-2016. The primary outcome was cirrhosis development ascertained by two consecutive aspartate aminotransferase (AST)-to-platelet ratio indexes (APRIs) > 2 after time zero given the infrequency of liver biopsy in clinical practice and that APRI is a validated non-invasive biomarker of fibrosis in CHC. We excluded those with initial APRI > 2 or pre-existing diagnosis of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma or hepatic decompensation. Enrollment was defined as the date of the first APRI. Time zero was defined as 2 years after enrollment. Cross-sectional (CS) models used predictors at or closest before time zero as a comparison. Longitudinal models used CS predictors plus longitudinal summary variables (maximum, minimum, maximum of slope, minimum of slope and total variation) between enrollment and time zero. Covariates included demographics, labs, and body mass index. Model performance was evaluated using concordance and area under the receiver operating curve (AuROC). A total of 72,683 individuals with CHC were analyzed with the cohort having a mean age of 52.8, 96.8% male and 53% white. There are 11,616 individuals (16%) who met the primary outcome over a mean follow-up of 7 years. We found superior predictive performance for the longitudinal Cox model compared to the CS Cox model (concordance 0.764 vs 0.746), and for the longitudinal boosted-survival-tree model compared to the linear Cox model (concordance 0.774 vs 0.764). The accuracy of the longitudinal models at 1,3,5 years after time zero also showed superior performance compared to the CS model, based on AuROC.

conclusionsBoosted-survival-tree based models using longitudinal information are statistically superior to cross-sectional or linear models for predicting development of cirrhosis in CHC, though all four models were highly accurate. Similar statistical methods could be applied to predict outcomes in other non-linear chronic disease states.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionMachine LearningVeteransHepatitis C, ChronicHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID30608929
PMCPMC6319806
OpenAlexW2907055014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.