ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Deep learning-based relapse prediction of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder with anti-aquaporin-4 antibody.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in central nervous system autoimmune diseases: from clinical decision support to mechanistic discovery and translation.EMBO molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Convergence of Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience towards the Diagnosis of Neurological Disorders-A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We previously identified the independent predictors of recurrent relapse in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) with anti-aquaporin-4 antibody (AQP4-ab) and designed a nomogram to estimate the 1- and 2-year relapse-free probability, using the Cox proportional hazard (Cox-PH) model, assuming that the risk of relapse had a linear correlation with clinical variables. However, whether the linear assumption fits real disease tragedy is unknown. We aimed to employ deep learning and machine learning to develop a novel prediction model of relapse in patients with NMOSD and compare the performance with the conventional Cox-PH model. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with NMOSD with AQP4-ab in 10 study centers. In this study, 1,135 treatment episodes from 358 patients in Huashan Hospital were employed as the training set while 213 treatment episodes from 92 patients in nine other research centers as the validation set. We compared five models with added variables of gender, AQP4-ab titer, previous attack under the same therapy, EDSS score at treatment initiation, maintenance therapy, age at treatment initiation, disease duration, the phenotype of the most recent attack, and annualized relapse rate (ARR) of the most recent year by concordance index (C-index): conventional Cox-PH, random survival forest (RSF), LogisticHazard, DeepHit, and DeepSurv. Results: When including all variables, RSF outperformed the C-index in the training set (0.739), followed by DeepHit (0.737), LogisticHazard (0.722), DeepSurv (0.698), and Cox-PH (0.679) models. As for the validation set, the C-index of LogisticHazard outperformed the other models (0.718), followed by DeepHit (0.704), DeepSurv (0.698), RSF (0.685), and Cox-PH (0.651) models. Maintenance therapy was calculated to be the most important variable for relapse prediction. Conclusion: This study confirmed the superiority of deep learning to design a prediction model of relapse in patients with AQP4-ab-positive NMOSD, with the LogisticHazard model showing the best predictive power in validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.