Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30863010›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2019

Neural network and logistic regression diagnostic prediction models for giant cell arteritis: development and validation.

Edsel B Ing, Neil R Miller, Angeline Nguyen, Wanhua Su, Lulu L C D Bursztyn, Meredith Poole, Vinay Kansal, Andrew Toren, Dana Albreki, Jack G Mouhanna and 21 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Applications of artificial intelligence and bioinformatics methodologies in the analysis of ocular biofluid markers: a scoping review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Giant Cell Arteritis: Updates and Controversies.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

31 authors.

Edsel B IngOphthalmology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, edinglidstrab@gmail.com.
Neil R MillerOphthalmology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Angeline NguyenOphthalmology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Wanhua SuStatistics, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Lulu L C D BursztynOphthalmology, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Meredith PooleQueens University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Vinay KansalOphthalmology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Andrew TorenLaval University, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Dana AlbrekiOphthalmology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jack G MouhannaUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Alla MuladzanovOphthalmology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Mikaël BernierUniversity of Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Mark GansOphthalmology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Dongho LeeUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Colten WendelOphthalmology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Claire SheldonOphthalmology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Marc ShieldsOphthalmology, University of Virginia, Fisherville, VA, USA.
Lorne BellanOphthalmology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Matthew Lee-WingOphthalmology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Yasaman MohadjerOphthalmology, Eye Institute of West Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Navdeep NijhawanOphthalmology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, edinglidstrab@gmail.com.
Felix TyndelNeurology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Arun N E SundaramNeurology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Martin W Ten HoveOphthalmology, Queens University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
John J ChenOphthalmology & Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Amadeo R RodriguezOphthalmology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Angela HuRheumatology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Nader KhalidiRheumatology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Royce IngUndergraduate Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Samuel W K WongStatistics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Nurhan TorunOphthalmology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop and validate neural network (NN) vs logistic regression (LR) diagnostic prediction models in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis (GCA). Design: Multicenter retrospective chart review.

methodsAn audit of consecutive patients undergoing temporal artery biopsy (TABx) for suspected GCA was conducted at 14 international medical centers. The outcome variable was biopsy-proven GCA. The predictor variables were age, gender, headache, clinical temporal artery abnormality, jaw claudication, vision loss, diplopia, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and platelet level. The data were divided into three groups to train, validate, and test the models. The NN model with the lowest false-negative rate was chosen. Internal and external validations were performed.

resultsOf 1,833 patients who underwent TABx, there was complete information on 1,201 patients, 300 (25%) of whom had a positive TABx. On multivariable LR age, platelets, jaw claudication, vision loss, log C-reactive protein, log erythrocyte sedimentation rate, headache, and clinical temporal artery abnormality were statistically significant predictors of a positive TABx (

conclusionStatistical models can aid in the triage of patients with suspected GCA. Misclassification remains a concern, but cutoff values for 95% and 99% sensitivities are provided (https://goo.gl/THCnuU).

Indexed as

giant cell arteritislogistic regressionneural networkophthalmologyprediction modelsrheumatologytemporal artery biopsy

Identifiers

PMID30863010
PMCPMC6388759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.