ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Evaluation of machine learning-based classification of clinical impairment and prediction of clinical worsening in multiple sclerosis.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Analysis Applied to Prediction of Early Progression Independent of Relapse Activity in Multiple Sclerosis Patients.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Integrating big data and artificial intelligence to predict progression in multiple sclerosis: challenges and the path forward.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Fingolimod Prevents Neuroinflammation but Has a Limited Effect on the Development of Ataxia in a Mouse Model for SCA1.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Multiple sclerosis: 2024 update.Free neuropathology · 2025Review
- Predicting multiple sclerosis disease progression and outcomes with machine learning and MRI-based biomarkers: a review.Journal of neurology · 2024Review
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobust predictive models of clinical impairment and worsening in multiple sclerosis (MS) are needed to identify patients at risk and optimize treatment strategies.
objectiveTo evaluate whether machine learning (ML) methods can classify clinical impairment and predict worsening in people with MS (pwMS) and, if so, which combination of clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features and ML algorithm is optimal.
methodsWe used baseline clinical and structural MRI data from two MS cohorts (Berlin: n = 125, Amsterdam: n = 330) to evaluate the capability of five ML models in classifying clinical impairment at baseline and predicting future clinical worsening over a follow-up of 2 and 5 years. Clinical worsening was defined by increases in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), Timed 25-Foot Walk Test (T25FW), 9-Hole Peg Test (9HPT), or Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Different combinations of clinical and volumetric MRI measures were systematically assessed in predicting clinical outcomes. ML models were evaluated using Monte Carlo cross-validation, area under the curve (AUC), and permutation testing to assess significance.
resultsThe ML models significantly determined clinical impairment at baseline for the Amsterdam cohort, but did not reach significance for predicting clinical worsening over a follow-up of 2 and 5 years. High disability (EDSS ≥ 4) was best determined by a support vector machine (SVM) classifier using clinical and global MRI volumes (AUC = 0.83 ± 0.07, p = 0.015). Impaired cognition (SDMT Z-score ≤ -1.5) was best determined by a SVM using regional MRI volumes (thalamus, ventricles, lesions, and hippocampus), reaching an AUC of 0.73 ± 0.04 (p = 0.008).
conclusionML models could aid in classifying pwMS with clinical impairment and identify relevant biomarkers, but prediction of clinical worsening is an unmet need.
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.