ArticlePain and therapy2025
Predicting Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Low Back Pain Using Gene Signature-Based Machine Learning Models.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2025. 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.
- A Gamified Pain Management Intervention for Adults With Chronic Pain in Mainland China: Single-Arm Pre-Post Pilot Study With Machine Learning Predictive Modeling.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Integrated Multiomics Analysis Reveals Manual Therapy Restores Autophagic Homeostasis via the AMPK/ULK1 Axis in Chronic Low Back Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- Predicting the Risk of Lumbar Prolapsed Disc: A Gene Signature-Based Machine Learning Analysis.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- Immunomodulatory Mechanisms of Rehmanniae Radix Praeparata-Achyranthes Root-Chinese Angelica Root Combination in Nontraumatic Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: A Comprehensive Network Pharmacology and Molecular Docking Study Focusing on Immunological Pathways.Mediators of inflammation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLow back pain (LBP) is a significant global health burden, with variable treatment outcomes and an unclear underlying molecular mechanism. Effective prediction of treatment responses remains a challenge. In this study, we aimed to develop gene signature-based machine learning models using transcriptomic data from peripheral immune cells to predict treatment outcomes in patients with LBP.
methodsThe transcriptomic data of patients with LBP from peripheral immune cells were retrieved from the GEO database. Patients with LBP were recruited, and treatment outcomes were assessed after 3 months. Patients were classified into two groups: those with resolved pain and those with persistent pain. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the two groups were identified through bioinformatic analysis. Key genes were selected using five machine learning models, including Lasso, Elastic Net, Random Forest, SVM, and GBM. These key genes were then used to train 45 machine learning models by combining nine different algorithms: Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machine, Multilayer Perceptron, Naive Bayes, and Linear Discriminant Analysis. Five-fold cross-validation was employed to ensure robust model evaluation and minimize overfitting. In each fold, the dataset was split into training and validation sets, with model performance assessed using multiple metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. The final model performance was reported as the mean and standard deviation across all five folds, providing a more reliable estimate of the models' ability to predict LBP treatment outcomes using gene expression data from peripheral immune cells.
resultsA total of 61 DEGs were identified between patients with resolved and persistent pain. From these genes, 45 machine learning models were constructed using different combinations of feature selection methods and classification algorithms. The Elastic Net with Logistic Regression achieved the highest accuracy of 88.7% ± 8.0% (mean ± standard deviation), followed closely by Elastic Net with Linear Discriminant Analysis (88.7% ± 7.5%) and Lasso with Multilayer Perceptron (87.7% ± 6.7%). Overall, 15 models demonstrated robust performance with accuracy > 80%, suggesting the reliability of our machine learning approach in predicting LBP treatment outcomes. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method was used to visualize the contribution of core genes to model performance, highlighting their roles in predicting treatment outcomes.
conclusionThe study demonstrates the potential of using transcriptomic data from peripheral immune cells and machine learning models to predict treatment outcomes in patients with LBP. The identification of key genes and the high accuracy of certain models provide a basis for future personalized treatment strategies in LBP management. Visualizing gene importance with SHAP adds interpretability to the predictive models, enhancing their clinical relevance.
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.