ArticleCureus2024
Application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Was Not Able to Reliably Predict Poor Outcomes in People With Hemophilia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The use of artificial intelligence in the prevention and management of bleeding disorders: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Hereditary and Acquired Hemophilia: From Genomics to Treatment Optimization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Predicting Inhibitor Development in Hemophilia 'A' using Machine Learning: A Comprehensive Approach to Data Preprocessing, Balancing, and Biomarker Identification Using AI on the CHAMP Dataset.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are currently used in the clinical field to improve the outcome predictions on disease diagnosis and prognosis. However, to date, few AI/ML applications have been reported in rare diseases, such as hemophilia. In this study, taking advantage of the ATHNdataset, an extensive repository of hemostasis and thrombosis data, we aimed to demonstrate the application of AI/ML approaches to build predictive models to identify persons with hemophilia (PwH) who are at risk of poor outcome and to inform providers in clinical decision-making towards helping patients prevent long-term complications. Materials and methods This project was carried out in two steps. First, the data were mined from ATHN 7, a subset study of the ATHNdataset, to determine markers that defined "poor outcome." Second, we applied multiple AI/ML approaches on the ATHNdataset to validate our findings and to develop predictive models to identify PwH at risk of poor outcomes. The classical regression-based predictive model was used as a reference to evaluate the performance of various AI/ML models. Results Our models included features similarly distributed to response variables of interest, resulting in a limited ability to distinguish poor outcomes. Low recall (<53%) resulted in no single model reliably predicting poor outcomes out of all actual positive cases. Our results suggest that, to build a more useful AI/ML model, we may need a larger dataset size along with additional features. Furthermore, our results showed that most of the AI/ML models outperformed the classical logistic regression model in both model accuracy and precision. Conclusions Our AI and ML model showed limited ability to predict poor outcomes in people with hemophilia.
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.