Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38331930›Full record

ArticleArthritis research & therapy2024

Prediction of ineffectiveness of biological drugs using machine learning and explainable AI methods: data from the Austrian Biological Registry BioReg.

Dubravka Ukalovic, Burkhard F Leeb, Bernhard Rintelen, Gabriela Eichbauer-Sturm, Peter Spellitz, Rudolf Puchner, Manfred Herold, Miriam Stetter, Vera Ferincz, Johannes Resch-Passini and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthritis research & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

13 authors.

Dubravka UkalovicSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Computed Tomography, Forchheim, Germany. dubravka.ukalovic@siemens-healthineers.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5167-0931
Burkhard F LeebRheumatological Practice, Private Office, Hollabrunn, Austria.
Bernhard RintelenLower Austrian State Hospital Stockerau, 2nd Department of Medicine, Lower Austrian Competence Center for Rheumatology, Karl Landsteiner Institute for Clinical Rheumatology, Stockerau, Austria.
Gabriela Eichbauer-SturmRheumatological Practice, Private Office, Linz, Austria.
Peter SpellitzRheuma-Center Wien-Oberlaa, Department of Rheumatology, Vienna, Austria.
Rudolf PuchnerRheumatological Practice, Private Office, Wels, Austria.
Manfred HeroldDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Miriam StetterRheumatological Practice, Private Office, Amstetten, Austria.
Vera FerinczDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital St. Pölten, St. Pölten, Austria.
Johannes Resch-PassiniRheuma-Center Wien-Oberlaa, Department of Rheumatology, Vienna, Austria.
Jochen ZwerinaHanusch Krankenhaus, Vienna, Austria.
Marcus Zimmermann-RittereiserSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Digital & Automation, Erlangen, Germany.
Ruth Fritsch-StorkHealth Care Center Mariahilf of ÖGK, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMachine learning models can support an individualized approach in the choice of bDMARDs. We developed prediction models for 5 different bDMARDs using machine learning methods based on patient data derived from the Austrian Biologics Registry (BioReg).

methodsData from 1397 patients and 19 variables with at least 100 treat-to-target (t2t) courses per drug were derived from the BioReg biologics registry. Different machine learning algorithms were trained to predict the risk of ineffectiveness for each bDMARD within the first 26 weeks. Cross-validation and hyperparameter optimization were applied to generate the best models. Model quality was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Using explainable AI (XAI), risk-reducing and risk-increasing factors were extracted.

resultsThe best models per drug achieved an AUROC score of the following: abatacept, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54-0.78); adalimumab, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74); certolizumab, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89); etanercept, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.55-0.87); tocilizumab, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77). The most risk-increasing variables were visual analytic scores (VAS) for abatacept and etanercept and co-therapy with glucocorticoids for adalimumab. Dosage was the most important variable for certolizumab and associated with a lower risk of non-response. Some variables, such as gender and rheumatoid factor (RF), showed opposite impacts depending on the bDMARD.

conclusionIneffectiveness of biological drugs could be predicted with promising accuracy. Interestingly, individual parameters were found to be associated with drug responses in different directions, indicating highly complex interactions. Machine learning can be of help in the decision-process by disentangling these relations.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidBiological ProductsAbataceptAdalimumabArtificial IntelligenceAustriaCertolizumab PegolEtanerceptHumansRegistriesAbataceptAdalimumabAntirheumatic AgentsBiological ProductsCertolizumab PegolEtanerceptbDMARDDMARDsMachine learningRheumatoid arthritisRoutinely collected data

Identifiers

PMID38331930
PMCPMC10851538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.