Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32196512›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Considering patient clinical history impacts performance of machine learning models in predicting course of multiple sclerosis.

Ruggiero Seccia, Daniele Gammelli, Fabio Dominici, Silvia Romano, Anna Chiara Landi, Marco Salvetti, Andrea Tacchella, Andrea Zaccaria, Andrea Crisanti, Francesca Grassi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ruggiero SecciaDept. of Computer, Control and Management Engineering Antonio Ruberti, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5292-1774
Daniele GammelliDept. of Computer, Control and Management Engineering Antonio Ruberti, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Fabio DominiciDept. of Computer, Control and Management Engineering Antonio Ruberti, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Silvia RomanoDept. of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0499-8843
Anna Chiara LandiDept. of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Marco SalvettiDept. of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Andrea TacchellaDept. of Physics, Istituto dei Sistemi Complessi (ISC)-CNR, UOS Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Andrea ZaccariaDept. of Physics, Istituto dei Sistemi Complessi (ISC)-CNR, UOS Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Andrea CrisantiDept. of Physics, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesca GrassiDept. of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0169-8397
Laura PalagiDept. of Computer, Control and Management Engineering Antonio Ruberti, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITInstitute for Complex Systems · ITIstituto Neurologico Mediterraneo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) progresses at an unpredictable rate, but predictions on the disease course in each patient would be extremely useful to tailor therapy to the individual needs. We explore different machine learning (ML) approaches to predict whether a patient will shift from the initial Relapsing-Remitting (RR) to the Secondary Progressive (SP) form of the disease, using only "real world" data available in clinical routine. The clinical records of 1624 outpatients (207 in the SP phase) attending the MS service of Sant'Andrea hospital, Rome, Italy, were used. Predictions at 180, 360 or 720 days from the last visit were obtained considering either the data of the last available visit (Visit-Oriented setting), comparing four classical ML methods (Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbours and AdaBoost) or the whole clinical history of each patient (History-Oriented setting), using a Recurrent Neural Network model, specifically designed for historical data. Missing values were handled by removing either all clinical records presenting at least one missing parameter (Feature-saving approach) or the 3 clinical parameters which contained missing values (Record-saving approach). The performances of the classifiers were rated using common indicators, such as Recall (or Sensitivity) and Precision (or Positive predictive value). In the visit-oriented setting, the Record-saving approach yielded Recall values from 70% to 100%, but low Precision (5% to 10%), which however increased to 50% when considering only predictions for which the model returned a probability above a given "confidence threshold". For the History-oriented setting, both indicators increased as prediction time lengthened, reaching values of 67% (Recall) and 42% (Precision) at 720 days. We show how "real world" data can be effectively used to forecast the evolution of MS, leading to high Recall values and propose innovative approaches to improve Precision towards clinically useful values.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAlgorithmsChildDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisNeural Networks, ComputerProbabilityRomeSupport Vector MachineYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32196512
PMCPMC7083323
OpenAlexW3011023930

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.