ArticlePain and therapy2025
Predicting the Risk of Lumbar Prolapsed Disc: A Gene Signature-Based Machine Learning Analysis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From complexity to clarity: A perspective on personalized spine care through genetic, psychosocial, and technological advancements.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLumbar prolapsed disc (LPD) is a leading cause of low back pain, contributing significantly to global disability and healthcare burden. This study aimed to develop machine learning models to predict the risk of LPD by analysing gene expression profiles for early detection.
methodsTranscriptomic data from peripheral blood samples were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database, with dataset GSE150408 used for training and GSE124272 for testing. The training dataset included 17 patients with sciatica resulting from LPD, all of whom had magnetic resonance imaging confirmation of single-level LPD at either the L4/5 or L5/S1 levels. Data from 17 healthy volunteers were used as controls. Recursive feature elimination (RFE) was employed to identify the most relevant gene signatures among 23 pain-related genes. Machine learning models, including support vector machine (SVM), random forest, k-nearest neighbours (KNN), logistic regression, and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), were trained and evaluated. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), F1 score, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC).
resultsEight key gene signatures were identified as significant predictors of LPD, with MMP9 exhibiting the highest importance score. Most of these genes were differentially expressed between patients with LPD and healthy controls (p < 0.05). Among the models, random forest demonstrated the highest accuracy (0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.85) and MCC (0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.76), followed by KNN, XGBoost, and SVM. Overall, the random forest model exhibited the most robust performance in predicting the risk of LPD.
conclusionThe results of our study suggest that machine learning models based on pain-related gene signatures may identify patients at high risk of developing LPD with reasonably high accuracy. These prediction models could perhaps be integrated into clinical diagnostic tools to enhance early diagnosis and prevention.
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.