ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Machine learning-based prediction of response to Ustekinumab with Crohn's disease.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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.
- Development and validation of a predictive nomogram for response to biologics and targeted therapy in Crohn's disease: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A reliable approach to predict the response to Ustekinumab (UST) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) is lacking. Objectives: This study aims to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models to predict the response to UST and further achieve personalized therapy. Design: Retrospective multi-center study. Methods: This study included 162 CD patients treated with UST between May 2022 and May 2024. Four ML algorithms (extreme gradient boosting, random forest, logistic regression, and support vector machine) were integrated to identify the optimal model, and Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) interpretation was used for visual explainability. Two models were established to forecast the response to UST, with the outcomes of the response situation at week 26 and secondary loss of response (sLOR) status at week 52, respectively. Eighty-two CD patients from the other five centers were applied for the week-26 model's external validation. Results: XGBoost performed excellently among the four ML algorithms. The week-26 model exhibited good performances of 0.88 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.92 area under the precision-recall curve, and 0.86 F1 score. The sLOR model demonstrated acceptable predictive performance with 0.74 AUC. Conclusion: We developed and validated models to predict UST response for CD patients and interpreted related factors by the SHAP method. We hope that the models can assist physicians in identifying patients who are suitable for UST at baseline and further explore who are at high risk for sLOR.
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.