ArticleJournal of rare diseases (Berlin, Germany)2025
Machine Learning-Based Identification of Natural History Studies in Rare Diseases: A Step toward Understanding Disease Development and Outcome.
Article in Journal of rare diseases (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
According to the Food and Drug Administration's definition, natural history studies (NHS) are observational studies that collect data on the course of a disease from onset to resolution or death, in the absence of an intervention. NHS plays a critical role in rare disease research to support clinical development objectives, including estimating disease prevalence, identifying diagnostic biomarkers. In this study, we present a machine learning based approach for systematically identifying NHS from PubMed as a foundational step toward large-scale NHS analysis for drug development in rare diseases. We explored a manually curated NHS corpus to develop machine learning and deep learning predictive models for NHS classification. We evaluated both binary and multiclass classifications and found that models trained specifically for binary classification (distinguishing NHS-relevant from NHS-irrelevant studies) achieved substantially higher performance than those trained to distinguish among four NHS-related categories, namely,
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.