ArticleRMD open2024
Identification of a machine learning-based diagnostic model for axial spondyloarthritis in rheumatological routine care using a random forest approach.
Article in RMD open, 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.
- Clinical and MRI features associated with remission following biological therapy in axial spondyloarthritis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Year in Review: Axial Spondyloarthritis.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2026Review
- Early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis in primary care using multi-agent systems.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Rheumatology: From Algorithms to Clinical Impact in Osteoporosis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Current application, possibilities, and challenges of artificial intelligence in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), early diagnosis is crucial, but diagnostic delay remains long and diagnostic criteria do not exist. We aimed to identify a diagnostic model that distinguishes patients with axSpA from patients without axSpA with chronic back pain based on clinical data in routine care.
methodsClinical data from patients with chronic back pain were used, with information on rheumatological examinations based on clinical indications. The total dataset was randomly divided into training and test datasets at a 7:3 ratio. A machine learning-based model was built to distinguish axSpA from non-axSpA using the random forest algorithm. Overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve-area under the curve (ROC-AUC) in the test dataset were calculated. The contribution of each variable to the accuracy of the model was assessed.
resultsData from 939 randomly selected patients were available: 659 diagnosed with axSpA and 280 with non-axSpA. In the test dataset, the model reached an accuracy of 0.9234, a sensitivity of 0.9586, a specificity of 0.8438 and a ROC-AUC of 0.9717. Human leucocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) contributed most to the accuracy of the model; that is, the accuracy would suffer most from not using HLA-B27, followed by insidious onset of back pain and erosions in the sacroiliac joint.
conclusionsWe provide a machine learning-based model that reveals high performance in diagnosing patients with chronic back pain with axSpA versus without axSpA based on information from a tertiary rheumatology practice. This model has the potential to improve diagnostic delay in patients with axSpA in daily routine settings.
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.