ArticlePloS one2019
Machine learning models to predict disease progression among veterans with hepatitis C virus.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of models to predict incident chronic liver disease: a systematic review and external validation in Chinese adults.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Applications, Clinical Performance, and Barriers to Implementation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based risk prediction model for pertussis in children: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- AI in Hepatology: Revolutionizing the Diagnosis and Management of Liver Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Machine-learning methodologies to predict disease progression in chronic hepatitis B in Africa.Hepatology communications · 2024Article
- Hybrid model for precise hepatitis-C classification using improved random forest and SVM method.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Long-Term Coronary Artery Disease Risk Prediction with Machine Learning Models.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence models for the diagnosis and management of liver diseases.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Article
- Machine learning insights concerning inflammatory and liver-related risk comorbidities in non-communicable and viral diseases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Stroke Risk Prediction with Machine Learning Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Reinforcement learning evaluation of treatment policies for patients with hepatitis C virus.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- The digital transformation of hepatology: The patient is logged in.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2022Review
- Disease Progression of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Modeling Using Machine Learning.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: A state-of-the-art review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Imputation of missing values for electronic health record laboratory data.NPJ digital medicine · 2021Article
- Artificial intelligence for hepatitis evaluation.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Machine learning analysis of pregnancy data enables early identification of a subpopulation of newborns with ASD.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Predicting Survival in Veterans with Follicular Lymphoma Using Structured Electronic Health Record Information and Machine Learning.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Machine Learning Techniques for Personalised Medicine Approaches in Immune-Mediated Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: Applications and Challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.