ArticleJournal of inflammation research2024
Risk Factors for Gout in Taiwan Biobank: A Machine Learning Approach.
Article in Journal of inflammation research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a risk models for gout in patients with diabetic kidney disease.BMC endocrine disorders · 2026Article
- Synergistic effects of ABCG2 Q141K variant in combination with alcohol consumption and male sex on gout risk in a rare-event Taiwanese cohort.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Status, challenges, and prospects of artificial intelligence application in gout diagnosis and treatment, drug research and development, and disease monitoring.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The Progress of Gout Prediction Models Based on Multi-source Data.Current rheumatology reviews · 2026Review
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
Purpose: We assessed the risk of gout in the Taiwan Biobank population by applying various machine learning algorithms. The study aimed to identify crucial risk factors and evaluate the performance of different models in gout prediction. Patients and Methods: This study analyzed data from 88,210 individuals in the Taiwan Biobank, identifying 19,338 cases of gout and 68,872 controls. After data cleaning and propensity score matching for gender and age, the final analytical sample comprised 38,676 individuals (19,338 gout cases and 19,338 controls). Five machine learning models were used: Bayesian Network (BN), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), Logistic Regression (LR), and Neural Network (NN). The predictive performance was evaluated using a split dataset (80% training set and 20% test set). Results: Variable importance analysis was performed to identify key variables, with uric acid and gender emerging as the most influential risk factors. Descriptive data highlighted significant differences between the control group and gout patients, with a higher prevalence of gout in men (51.36% vs 48.64%). Both the RF and GB demonstrated high performance across multiple metrics, with RF consistently achieving a high area under the curve (AUC) of 0.986 to 0.987, alongside excellent sensitivity (0.945-0.947) and specificity (0.998-0.999). GB also performed robustly, with AUC values around 0.987-0.988 and maintaining high sensitivity (0.944-0.950) and specificity (0.995-0.999) across different model variations. The F1 scores for both models (GB and RF) indicate strong predictive capabilities, with values around 0.971-0.972. Conclusion: The RF and GB demonstrated exceptional accuracy in predicting gout status, particularly when incorporating genetic data alongside clinical factors. These findings underscore the potential for integrating machine learning models with genetic information to enhance gout prediction accuracy in clinical practice.
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.