Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38743480›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Classifying Self-Reported Rheumatoid Arthritis Flares Using Daily Patient-Generated Data From a Smartphone App: Exploratory Analysis Applying Machine Learning Approaches.

Julie Gandrup, David A Selby, William G Dixon

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07688174 (Evidence Based, Patient-led Development of a Novel Axial Spondyloarthritis Flare Management Pathway), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07688174 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Evidence Based, Patient-led Development of a Novel Axial Spondyloarthritis Flare Management Pathway

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorRoyal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation TrustRan2026 to 2026Enrolled40ConditionsAxial Spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), Axial Spondyloarthritis, Non-Radiographic, Axial Spondyloarthritis, Radiographic, Axial Spondylarthritis (r-axSpA)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Julie GandrupCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4109-4889
David A SelbyCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8026-5663
William G DixonCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5881-4857

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ability to predict rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flares between clinic visits based on real-time, longitudinal patient-generated data could potentially allow for timely interventions to avoid disease worsening.

objectiveThis exploratory study aims to investigate the feasibility of using machine learning methods to classify self-reported RA flares based on a small data set of daily symptom data collected on a smartphone app.

methodsDaily symptoms and weekly flares reported on the Remote Monitoring of Rheumatoid Arthritis (REMORA) smartphone app from 20 patients with RA over 3 months were used. Predictors were several summary features of the daily symptom scores (eg, pain and fatigue) collected in the week leading up to the flare question. We fitted 3 binary classifiers: logistic regression with and without elastic net regularization, a random forest, and naive Bayes. Performance was evaluated according to the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. For the best-performing model, we considered sensitivity and specificity for different thresholds in order to illustrate different ways in which the predictive model could behave in a clinical setting.

resultsThe data comprised an average of 60.6 daily reports and 10.5 weekly reports per participant. Participants reported a median of 2 (IQR 0.75-4.25) flares each over a median follow-up time of 81 (IQR 79-82) days. AUCs were broadly similar between models, but logistic regression with elastic net regularization had the highest AUC of 0.82. At a cutoff requiring specificity to be 0.80, the corresponding sensitivity to detect flares was 0.60 for this model. The positive predictive value (PPV) in this population was 53%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 85%. Given the prevalence of flares, the best PPV achieved meant only around 2 of every 3 positive predictions were correct (PPV 0.65). By prioritizing a higher NPV, the model correctly predicted over 9 in every 10 non-flare weeks, but the accuracy of predicted flares fell to only 1 in 2 being correct (NPV and PPV of 0.92 and 0.51, respectively).

conclusionsPredicting self-reported flares based on daily symptom scorings in the preceding week using machine learning methods was feasible. The observed predictive accuracy might improve as we obtain more data, and these exploratory results need to be validated in an external cohort. In the future, analysis of frequently collected patient-generated data may allow us to predict flares before they unfold, opening opportunities for just-in-time adaptative interventions. Depending on the nature and implication of an intervention, different cutoff values for an intervention decision need to be considered, as well as the level of predictive certainty required.

Indexed as

arthriticarthritisclassificationclassifyflareflaresjointjointsmachine learningmobile healthmobile phonemusculoskeletalpatient-generated health datarheumaticrheumatismrheumatoid arthritissmartphonesymptomsymptoms

Identifiers

PMID38743480
PMCPMC11134244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.