Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32195365›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2020

A systematic review of the applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in autoimmune diseases.

I S Stafford, M Kellermann, E Mossotto, R M Beattie, B D MacArthur, S Ennis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

119 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Artificial intelligence in inflammatory bowel disease.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2025
    Review

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

I S Stafford1Department of Human Genetics and Genomic Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1666-1906
M Kellermann1Department of Human Genetics and Genomic Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2304-5856
E Mossotto1Department of Human Genetics and Genomic Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
R M Beattie3Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Southampton Children's Hospital, Southampton, UK.
B D MacArthur2Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5396-9750
S Ennis1Department of Human Genetics and Genomic Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2648-0869

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autoimmune diseases are chronic, multifactorial conditions. Through machine learning (ML), a branch of the wider field of artificial intelligence, it is possible to extract patterns within patient data, and exploit these patterns to predict patient outcomes for improved clinical management. Here, we surveyed the use of ML methods to address clinical problems in autoimmune disease. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, embase and computers and applied sciences complete databases. Relevant papers included "machine learning" or "artificial intelligence" and the autoimmune diseases search term(s) in their title, abstract or key words. Exclusion criteria: studies not written in English, no real human patient data included, publication prior to 2001, studies that were not peer reviewed, non-autoimmune disease comorbidity research and review papers. 169 (of 702) studies met the criteria for inclusion. Support vector machines and random forests were the most popular ML methods used. ML models using data on multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease were most common. A small proportion of studies (7.7% or 13/169) combined different data types in the modelling process. Cross-validation, combined with a separate testing set for more robust model evaluation occurred in 8.3% of papers (14/169). The field may benefit from adopting a best practice of validation, cross-validation and independent testing of ML models. Many models achieved good predictive results in simple scenarios (e.g. classification of cases and controls). Progression to more complex predictive models may be achievable in future through integration of multiple data types.

Indexed as

Autoimmune diseasesMachine learningPredictive medicine

Identifiers

PMID32195365
PMCPMC7062883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.