ArticleAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2025
Development of machine learning models for chronic fatigue prediction in granulomatosis with polyangiitis.
Article in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic fatigue severely compromises the quality of life in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Traditional diagnostic methods are often time-consuming, relying on clinical expertise and detailed questionnaires. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model capable of predicting chronic fatigue in GPA patients based on clinical data, with a particular focus on improving diagnostic capacity in regions with limited access to specialists.
methodsThis cross-sectional study collected data on fatigue (measured by the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, MFIS), functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ), disease activity (Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, BVAS), comorbidities, medication use, physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short Form, IPAQ-SF), and demographic characteristics. Four machine learning algorithms-logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting-were assessed using a 70/30 train-test split. Model performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, F1 score, recall, and precision. Statistical comparisons were performed using Welch's t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, while the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was applied to categorical variables, with significance set at P < 0.05. All analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.1 for Windows.
resultsForty-five patients were assessed: 62.2% were female, with a median BMI of 27.72 kg/m² (23.2-30.1), a median age of 55.5 years, and a median disease duration of 12.0 years (6.0-17.0). Fatigue was reported by 20 patients (MFIS score ≥ 38), and seven patients (15.5%) had active disease according to the BVAS, which was similar between the fatigued and no fatigued groups (P > 0.05). The fatigued group had more acute-phase reactants and prednisone use (P < 0.05). The tree-based models achieved an AUC of approximately 0.80, outperforming the other models.
conclusionTree-based models demonstrated superior predictive performance in identifying chronic fatigue. The Random Forest model, in particular, highlighted higher disability in activities of daily living (HAQ), older age, and longer disease duration as key predictors. Although the models performed well, additional data and incorporation of clinically relevant variables may further enhance predictive accuracy. Patients with GPA who experienced fatigue showed higher glucocorticoid use and elevated acute-phase reactants, despite similar levels of disease activity, suggesting mechanisms beyond inflammation. Machine learning shows strong potential as a clinical tool for fatigue identification, especially in settings with limited access to specialist care.
trial registrationUniversal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1271-6003; Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC): RBR-9n4z2hh. Registration date: January 18, 2022, and Plataforma Brasil (CAAE # 41762820.1.0000.0068).
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.