Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38779086›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

Stratifying risk of disease in haematuria patients using machine learning techniques to improve diagnostics.

Anna Drożdż, Brian Duggan, Mark W Ruddock, Cherith N Reid, Mary Jo Kurth, Joanne Watt, Allister Irvine, John Lamont, Peter Fitzgerald, Declan O'Rourke and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Anna DrożdżPersonal Health Data Science Group, Sano - Centre for Computational Personalised Medicine - International Research Foundation, Krakow, Poland.
Brian DugganSouth Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, Ulster Hospital Dundonald, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Mark W RuddockClinical Studies Group, Randox Laboratories Ltd., Co., Antrim, United Kingdom.
Cherith N ReidClinical Studies Group, Randox Laboratories Ltd., Co., Antrim, United Kingdom.
Mary Jo KurthClinical Studies Group, Randox Laboratories Ltd., Co., Antrim, United Kingdom.
Joanne WattClinical Studies Group, Randox Laboratories Ltd., Co., Antrim, United Kingdom.
Allister IrvineClinical Studies Group, Randox Laboratories Ltd., Co., Antrim, United Kingdom.
John LamontClinical Studies Group, Randox Laboratories Ltd., Co., Antrim, United Kingdom.
Peter FitzgeraldClinical Studies Group, Randox Laboratories Ltd., Co., Antrim, United Kingdom.
Declan O'RourkeBelfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom.
David CurryBelfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Mark EvansBelfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Ruth BoydNorthern Ireland Clinical Trials Network, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Jose SousaPersonal Health Data Science Group, Sano - Centre for Computational Personalised Medicine - International Research Foundation, Krakow, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Detailed and invasive clinical investigations are required to identify the causes of haematuria. Highly unbalanced patient population (predominantly male) and a wide range of potential causes make the ability to correctly classify patients and identify patient-specific biomarkers a major challenge. Studies have shown that it is possible to improve the diagnosis using multi-marker analysis, even in unbalanced datasets, by applying advanced analytical methods. Here, we applied several machine learning algorithms to classify patients from the haematuria patient cohort (HaBio) by analysing multiple biomarkers and to identify the most relevant ones. Materials and methods: We applied several classification and feature selection methods (k-means clustering, decision trees, random forest with LIME explainer and CACTUS algorithm) to stratify patients into two groups: healthy (with no clear cause of haematuria) or sick (with an identified cause of haematuria e.g., bladder cancer, or infection). The classification performance of the models was compared. Biomarkers identified as important by the algorithms were also analysed in relation to their involvement in the pathological processes. Results: Results showed that a high unbalance in the datasets significantly affected the classification by random forest and decision trees, leading to the overestimation of the sick class and low model performance. CACTUS algorithm was more robust to the unbalance in the dataset. CACTUS obtained a balanced accuracy of 0.747 for both genders, 0.718 for females and 0.803 for males. The analysis showed that in the classification process for the whole dataset: microalbumin, male gender, and tPSA emerged as the most informative biomarkers. For males: age, microalbumin, tPSA, cystatin C, BTA, HAD and S100A4 were the most significant biomarkers while for females microalbumin, IL-8, pERK, and CXCL16. Conclusions: CACTUS algorithm demonstrated improved performance compared with other methods such as decision trees and random forest. Additionally, we identified the most relevant biomarkers for the specific patient group, which could be considered in the future as novel biomarkers for diagnosis. Our results have the potential to inform future research and provide new personalised diagnostic approaches tailored directly to the needs of the individuals.

Indexed as

biomarkersbladder cancerdecision support systemhaematuriamachine learningstratificationunbalanced data

Identifiers

PMID38779086
PMCPMC11109371

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.