ArticlePloS one2024
Predictive model for converting optic neuritis to multiple sclerosis; decision tree in focus.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting the magnitude of risk for non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection in superficial esophageal cancer using explainable artificial intelligence.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Analysis of optic neuritis risk in patients with allergic diseases.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptic neuritis (ON) can be an initial clinical presentation of multiple sclerosis This study aims to provide a practical predictive model for identifying at-risk ON patients in developing MS.
methodWe utilized data from the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial study, which enrolled 457 patients aged from 18 to 46 years, all diagnosed with acute ON. These patients underwent up to 15 years of neurological and ophthalmologic examinations and imaging. The selection of variables for the developing model was based on clinical importance and statistical significance, and any missing values were appropriately addressed. We developed a Decision Tree (DT) classifier as the primary model and manually tuned its hyperparameters for optimal performance. We employed SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) for feature importance evaluation. All analysis was performed using Python version 3.10.9 and its associated libraries.
resultsA total of 388 patients completed the study, of which 154 developed clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS). It was observed that 61% of patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions developed CDMS. The final variables selected for analysis were MRI lesions, neurologic history, ON type, gender, and visual field mean deviation. The DT model achieved an accuracy of 70.1% during cross-validation and 69.1% on the test set, with an area under the curve of 74.9% and 71.7%, respectively. Comparative analysis of DT with other models showed similar performance. SHAP analysis revealed that MRI lesions and ON type emerged as the two most significant features, with relative importance of 61% and 18%, respectively.
conclusionThe decision tree model, with satisfactory performance, effectively stratifies patients, based on baseline findings and offers valuable insights for informed decision-making by physicians.
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.