Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33939284›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2021

Application of machine learning to predict reduction in total PANSS score and enrich enrollment in schizophrenia clinical trials.

Jagdeep T Podichetty, Rebecca M Silvola, Violeta Rodriguez-Romero, Richard F Bergstrom, Majid Vakilynejad, Robert R Bies, Robert E Stratford

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Artificial intelligence for optimizing recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jagdeep T PodichettyDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Rebecca M SilvolaDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0493-0603
Violeta Rodriguez-RomeroDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4918-0984
Richard F BergstromDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Majid VakilynejadTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Robert R BiesDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3818-2252
Robert E StratfordDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Indiana University School of MedicineTakeda (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trial efficiency, defined as facilitating patient enrollment, and reducing the time to reach safety and efficacy decision points, is a critical driving factor for making improvements in therapeutic development. The present work evaluated a machine learning (ML) approach to improve phase II or proof-of-concept trials designed to address unmet medical needs in treating schizophrenia. Diagnostic data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) trial were used to develop a binary classification ML model predicting individual patient response as either "improvement," defined as greater than 20% reduction in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score, or "no improvement," defined as an inadequate treatment response (<20% reduction in total PANSS). A random forest algorithm performed best relative to other tree-based approaches in model ability to classify patients after 6 months of treatment. Although model ability to identify true positives, a measure of model sensitivity, was poor (<0.2), its specificity, true negative rate, was high (0.948). A second model, adapted from the first, was subsequently applied as a proof-of-concept for the ML approach to supplement trial enrollment by identifying patients not expected to improve based on their baseline diagnostic scores. In three virtual trials applying this screening approach, the percentage of patients predicted to improve ranged from 46% to 48%, consistently approximately double the CATIE response rate of 22%. These results show the promising application of ML to improve clinical trial efficiency and, as such, ML models merit further consideration and development.

Indexed as

Machine LearningPatient SelectionAdolescentAdultAgedAntipsychotic AgentsClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProof of Concept StudySchizophreniaTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID33939284
PMCPMC8504834
OpenAlexW3159255475

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.