ArticlePloS one2025
Machine learning detects hidden treatment response patterns only in the presence of comprehensive clinical phenotyping.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Bases of Myopathies and Their Impact on Clinical Practice: Advances and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Identifying health risk profiles among older adults in Kerala using machine learning: multidimensional clustering, predictive determinants, and public health implications.Frontiers in public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inferential statistics traditionally used in clinical trials can miss relationships between clinical phenotypes and treatment responses. We simulated a randomised clinical trial to explore how gradient boosting (XGBoost) machine learning compares with traditional analysis when 'ground truth' treatment responsiveness depends on the interaction of multiple phenotypic variables. As expected, traditional analysis detected a significant treatment benefit (outcome measure change from baseline = 4.23; 95% CI 3.64-4.82). However, recommending treatment based upon this evidence would lead to 56.3% of patients failing to respond. In contrast, machine learning correctly predicted treatment response in 97.8% (95% CI 96.6-99.1) of patients, with model interrogation showing the critical phenotypic variables and the values determining treatment response had been identified. Importantly, when a single variable was omitted, accuracy dropped to 69.4% (95% CI 65.3-73.4). This proof of principle underscores the significant potential of machine learning to maximise the insights derived from clinical research studies. However, the effectiveness of machine learning in this context is highly dependent on the comprehensive capture of phenotypic data.
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.