Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31734524›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2019

SVM recursive feature elimination analyses of structural brain MRI predicts near-term relapses in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis.

Viktor Wottschel, Declan T Chard, Christian Enzinger, Massimo Filippi, Jette L Frederiksen, Claudio Gasperini, Antonio Giorgio, Maria A Rocca, Alex Rovira, Nicola De Stefano and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

15 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Viktor WottschelDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Queen Square MS Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: v.wottschel@amsterdamumc.nl.
Declan T ChardQueen Square MS Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom; National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), University College London Hospitals, Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Christian EnzingerResearch Unit for Neuronal Repair and Plasticity, Department of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Massimo FilippiNeuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Jette L FrederiksenRigshospitalet-Glostrup and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Claudio GasperiniSan Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Antonio GiorgioUniversity of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Maria A RoccaNeuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Alex RoviraHospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
Nicola De StefanoUniversity of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Mar TintoréHospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
Daniel C AlexanderCentre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Frederik BarkhofDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Queen Square MS Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom; National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), University College London Hospitals, Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Neurology and Healthcare Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Olga CiccarelliQueen Square MS Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom; National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), University College London Hospitals, Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.
MAGNIMS study group and the EuroPOND consortium
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Siena · ITVall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ESVita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITCarlo Forlanini Hospital · ITMedical University of Graz · ATUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning classification is an attractive approach to automatically differentiate patients from healthy subjects, and to predict future disease outcomes. A clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) is often the first presentation of multiple sclerosis (MS), but it is difficult at onset to predict who will have a second relapse and hence convert to clinically definite MS. In this study, we thus aimed to distinguish CIS converters from non-converters at onset of a CIS, using recursive feature elimination and weight averaging with support vector machines. We also sought to assess the influence of cohort size and cross-validation methods on the accuracy estimate of the classification. We retrospectively collected 400 patients with CIS from six European MAGNIMS MS centres. Patients underwent brain MRI at onset of a CIS according to local standard-of-care protocols. The diagnosis of clinically definite MS at one-year follow-up was the standard against which the accuracy of the model was tested. For each patient, we derived MRI-based features, such as grey matter probability, white matter lesion load, cortical thickness, and volume of specific cortical and white matter regions. Features with little contribution to the classification model were removed iteratively through an interleaved sample bootstrapping and feature averaging approach. Classification of CIS outcome at one-year follow-up was performed with 2-fold, 5-fold, 10-fold and leave-one-out cross-validation for each centre cohort independently and in all patients together. The estimated classification accuracy across centres ranged from 64.9% to 88.1% using 2-fold cross-validation and from 73% to 92.9% using leave-one-out cross-validation. The classification accuracy estimate was higher in single-centre, smaller data sets than in combinations of data sets, being the lowest when all patients were merged together. Regional MRI features such as WM lesions, grey matter probability in the thalamus and the precuneus or cortical thickness in the cuneus and inferior temporal gyrus predicted the occurrence of a second relapse in patients at onset of a CIS using support vector machines. The increased accuracy estimate of the classification achieved with smaller and single-centre samples may indicate a model bias (overfitting) when data points were limited, but also more homogeneous. We provide an overview of classifier performance from a range of cross-validation schemes to give insight into the variability across schemes. The proposed recursive feature elimination approach with weight averaging can be used both in single- and multi-centre data sets in order to bridge the gap between group-level comparisons and making predictions for individual patients.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionSupport Vector MachineAdolescentAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGray MatterHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisNeuroimagingRetrospective StudiesWhite MatterFeature selectionMachine learning classificationMultiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID31734524
PMCPMC6861587
OpenAlexW2982233517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.