ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Machine learning in predicting treatment response and remission in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The heterogeneity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and its unpredictable course have always been a challenge for gastroenterologists, with regard to predicting the disease response using endoscopic techniques. Machine learning (ML) models have shown some early promise in predicting treatment response in IBD patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies investigating the application of ML to predict treatment response and remission in IBD patients. We used the CHARMS checklist for data extraction. Bias was assessed with the PROBAST tool. Results: We included in our review 6 studies that evaluated numbers of IBD patients ranging from 67 to 3004. ML models demonstrated low to moderate predictive accuracy for treatment response and remission (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.489-0.811; sensitivity: 0.46-0.96; specificity: 0.56-0.98). The studies that utilized ML models with more input variables performed better. Furthermore, only 2 studies performed external validation, and half of the studies demonstrated a substantial risk of bias due to missing data/overfitting, and variability in outcome definition. Conclusions: ML models show considerable promise in predicting treatment outcomes and remission in IBD. However, given the substantial bias in studies so far, future studies should use a standardized methodology, external validation, and an interpretable broader input variable.
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.