ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
Integrated imaging-informed and machine learning-based prognostic models for risk stratification in connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease: a multicenter study.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesConnective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD) exhibits heterogeneous clinical outcomes, and traditional ILD-GAP score provides limited prognostic precision. We hypothesized that integration of imaging-derived fibrosis measures would improve prognostic discrimination compared with physiology-based models. We aimed to develop and externally validate integrated prognostic systems for risk stratification in CTD-ILD.
methodIn this multicenter retrospective study, patients with CTD-ILD confirmed by multidisciplinary evaluation were enrolled from two tertiary centers. Baseline demographic, functional, laboratory, and imaging data were collected at diagnosis. Three prognostic systems were evaluated: System A (ILD-GAP and fibrosis score independently), system B (a composite model integrating GAP and fibrosis scores), and system C (machine learning models using clinical and imaging variables). The primary endpoint was a composite adverse outcome during follow-up. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with internal and external validation.
resultsIn external validation, the fibrosis score demonstrated stronger discrimination than the ILD-GAP index (AUC 0.798 vs. 0.768). The composite model showed modest improvement (AUC 0.821). Machine learning models achieved the highest discrimination, with random forest and support vector machine yielding AUCs of 0.833 (95% CI 0.741-0.927) and 0.826 (95% CI 0.735-0.910), respectively. SHAP analysis identified fibrosis extent, DLCO, and age as key contributors to prediction.
conclusionsIn CTD-ILD, imaging-informed and data-driven models improve prognostic discrimination compared with traditional physiology-based indices. The fibrosis score plays a central role in outcome prediction, while composite and machine learning approaches provide incremental refinement for individualized risk stratification. Key Points • Imaging-derived fibrosis score demonstrated superior prognostic discrimination compared with the traditional ILD-GAP index in CTD-ILD, highlighting the central role of structural lung damage in outcome prediction. • Integration of clinical, functional, and HRCT-derived variables through optimized composite modeling significantly improved risk stratification, with machine learning approaches (random forest and support vector machine) achieving the highest predictive performance. • SHAP analysis identified fibrosis extent, DLCO, and age as the dominant contributors to adverse outcomes, underscoring the complementary value of imaging and physiology in individualized risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42113391What 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.