ArticleACR open rheumatology2022
Machine Learning Applied to Patient-Reported Outcomes to Classify Physician-Derived Measures of Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning for predicting treatment response to biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review.BMC rheumatology · 2025Pooled it
- Sex bias consideration in healthcare machine-learning research: a systematic review in rheumatoid arthritis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Using machine learning to uncover joint involvement patterns linked to disease activity and disability in rheumatoid arthritis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Inferring Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Status From the Electronic Health Records Across Health Systems.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- A narrative review of the use of PROMs and machine learning to impact value-based clinical decision-making.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Review
- How and Who? Examining Real-World Evidence of Engagement and Use of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Smartphone Application in Routine Clinical Care for Patients With Inflammatory Arthritides.ACR open rheumatology · 2025Article
- Using artificial intelligence to predict patient outcomes from patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Current application, possibilities, and challenges of artificial intelligence in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025Review
- Generating Real-World Evidence From the Excellence Network in Rheumatology.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2024Article
- Response to Treatment with Intravenous Golimumab or Infliximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: PROMIS Results from the Real-World Observational Phase 4 AWARE Study.Rheumatology and therapy · 2023Article
- Article
- Ortho-digital dynamics: Exploration of advancing digital health technologies in musculoskeletal disease management.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.