ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023
Accounting for uncertainty in training data to improve machine learning performance in predicting new disease activity in early multiple sclerosis.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early Prognostic Factors in Multiple Sclerosis: Clinical and Therapeutic Implications.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning based algorithms for virtual early detection and screening of neurodegenerative and neurocognitive disorders: a systematic-review.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Semi-Supervised Learning for Predicting Multiple Sclerosis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Capturing expert uncertainty: ICC-informed soft labelling for volcano-seismicity.Bulletin of volcanology · 2025Article
- Predicting multiple sclerosis disease progression and outcomes with machine learning and MRI-based biomarkers: a review.Journal of neurology · 2024Review
- Evaluation of machine learning-based classification of clinical impairment and prediction of clinical worsening in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Machine learning (ML) has great potential for using health data to predict clinical outcomes in individual patients. Missing data are a common challenge in training ML algorithms, such as when subjects withdraw from a clinical study, leaving some samples with missing outcome labels. In this study, we have compared three ML models to determine whether accounting for label uncertainty can improve a model's predictions. Methods: We used a dataset from a completed phase-III clinical trial that evaluated the efficacy of minocycline for delaying the conversion from clinically isolated syndrome to multiple sclerosis (MS), using the McDonald 2005 diagnostic criteria. There were a total of 142 participants, and at the 2-year follow-up 81 had converted to MS, 29 remained stable, and 32 had uncertain outcomes. In a stratified 7-fold cross-validation, we trained three random forest (RF) ML models using MRI volumetric features and clinical variables to predict the conversion outcome, which represented new disease activity within 2 years of a first clinical demyelinating event. One RF was trained using subjects with the uncertain labels excluded (RF Results: Probabilistic random forest outperformed both the RF models with the highest AUC (0.76, compared to 0.69 for RF Conclusion: Machine learning algorithms capable of modeling label uncertainty can improve predictive performance in datasets in which a substantial number of subjects have unknown outcomes.
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.