ArticlePloS one2024
Machine learning evaluation for identification of M-proteins in human serum.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning for the Interpretation of Serum Protein and Immunofixation Electrophoresis in Multiple Myeloma: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Are we ready to integrate advanced artificial intelligence models in clinical laboratory?Biochemia medica · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serum electrophoresis (SPEP) is a method used to analyze the distribution of the most important proteins in the blood. The major clinical question is the presence of monoclonal fraction(s) of antibodies (M-protein/paraprotein), which is essential for the diagnosis and follow-up of hematological diseases, such as multiple myeloma. Recent studies have shown that machine learning can be used to assess protein electrophoresis by, for example, examining protein glycan patterns to follow up tumor surgery. In this study we compared 26 different decision tree algorithms to identify the presence of M-proteins in human serum by using numerical data from serum protein capillary electrophoresis. For the automated detection and clustering of data, we used an anonymized data set consisting of 67,073 samples. We found five methods with superior ability to detect M-proteins: Extra Trees (ET), Random Forest (RF), Histogram Grading Boosting Regressor (HGBR), Light Gradient Boosting Method (LGBM), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB). Additionally, we implemented a game theoretic approach to disclose which features in the data set that were indicative of the resulting M-protein diagnosis. The results verified the gamma globulin fraction and part of the beta globulin fraction as the most important features of the electrophoresis analysis, thereby further strengthening the reliability of our approach. Finally, we tested the algorithms for classifying the M-protein isotypes, where ET and XGB showed the best performance out of the five algorithms tested. Our results show that serum capillary electrophoresis combined with decision tree algorithms have great potential in the application of rapid and accurate identification of M-proteins. Moreover, these methods would be applicable for a variety of blood analyses, such as hemoglobinopathies, indicating a wide-range diagnostic use. However, for M-protein isotype classification, combining machine learning solutions for numerical data from capillary electrophoresis with gel electrophoresis image data would be most advantageous.
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.