ArticleMuscle & nerve2025
Predicting Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Mortality With Machine Learning in Diverse Patient Databases.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 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.
- Predicting Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Mortality With Machine Learning in Diverse Patient Databases.Muscle & nerve · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPredicting mortality in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) guides personalized care and clinical trial optimization. Existing statistical and machine learning models often rely on baseline or diagnosis visit data, assume fixed predictor-survival relationships, lack validation in non-Western populations, and depend on features like genetic tests and imaging not routinely available. This study developed ALS mortality prediction models that address these limitations.
methodsWe trained Royston-Parmar and eXtreme Gradient Boosting models on the PRO-ACT database for 6- and 12-month mortality predictions. Each visit was labeled positive (for death) if death occurred within 6 or 12 months, negative if survival was confirmed beyond that, and excluded if follow-up was insufficient, assuming patients were alive up to their last recorded visit. Models were validated on independent datasets from the North American Celecoxib trial and a Singapore ALS clinic population. Feature importance and the impact of reducing predictors on performance were evaluated.
resultsModels predicted mortality from any clinical visit with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.768-0.819, rising to 0.865 for 12-month prediction using 3-month windows. Albumin was the top predictor, reflecting nutritional and inflammatory status. Other key predictors included ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised slope, limb onset, absolute basophil count, forced vital capacity, bicarbonate, body mass index, and respiratory rate. Models maintained robust performance on the independent datasets and after reducing inputs to seven key predictors. DISCUSSION: These visit-agnostic models, validated across diverse populations, identify key prognostic features and demonstrate the potential of predictive modeling to enhance ALS care and trial design.
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.