Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36220128›Full record

ArticleACR open rheumatology2022

Machine Learning Applied to Patient-Reported Outcomes to Classify Physician-Derived Measures of Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.

Jeffrey R Curtis, Yujie Su, Shawn Black, Stephen Xu, Wayne Langholff, Clifton O Bingham, Shelly Kafka, Fenglong Xie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey R CurtisUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8907-8976
Yujie SuUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham.
Shawn BlackJanssen Research & Development, LLC, Spring House, Pennsylvania.
Stephen XuJanssen Research & Development, LLC, Spring House, Pennsylvania.
Wayne LangholffJanssen Research & Development, LLC, Spring House, Pennsylvania.
Clifton O BinghamJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4752-5029
Shelly KafkaJanssen Research & Development, LLC, Spring House, Pennsylvania.
Fenglong XieUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham.
Janssen (United States) · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Methods and Health Informatics CoreP30AR072583 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI JEFFREY R. CURTIS · 2020 to 2026
$5.7M
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072583NIAMS NIH HHS P30AR072583
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient-reported outcome (PRO) data have assumed increasing importance in the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet physician-derived disease activity measures, such as Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), remain the most accepted metrics to assess disease activity. The possibility that newer longitudinal PRO data might be used as a proxy for the CDAI has not been evaluated.

methodsUsing data from a large pragmatic trial, we evaluated patients with RA initiating golimumab intravenous or infliximab. The classification target was low disease activity (LDA) (CDAI ≤10) at the first visit between months 3 and 12. Data were randomly partitioned into training (80%) and test (20%) data sets. Multiple machine learning (ML) methods (eg, random forests, gradient boosting, support vector machines) were used to classify CDAI disease activity category, conduct feature selection, and assess feature importance. Model performance evaluated cross-validated error, comparing different ML approaches using both training and test data.

resultsA total of 494 patients were analyzed, and 36.4% achieved LDA. The most important classification features included several Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures (social participation, pain interference, pain intensity, and physical function), patient global, and baseline CDAI. Among all ML methods, random forests performed best. Overall model accuracy and positive predictive values for all ML methods were approximately 80%.

conclusionML methods coupled with longitudinal PRO data appear useful and can achieve reasonable accuracy in classifying LDA among patients starting a new biologic. This approach has promise for real-world evidence generation in the common circumstance when physician-derived disease activity data are not available yet PRO measures are.

Identifiers

PMID36220128
PMCPMC9746663
OpenAlexW4304471423

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.