ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Interpretable machine learning models for predicting tocilizumab response in rheumatoid arthritis using clinical data.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 30% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond to tocilizumab (TCZ). This study aimed to predict TCZ response using machine learning models trained on clinical data.
methodsBaseline and follow-up data from patients with RA treated with TCZ were collected. Seven different machine learning models (logistic regression, K-nearest neighbor algorithm, random forest, support vector machine, decision tree, gradient boosting, and boosting algorithm) were trained to predict the treatment response of patients with RA across different imaging stages after three to six months of therapy. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was the main performance evaluation feature to screen the best model, and the relative importance of each variable in the model was ranked using the Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) value.
resultsA total of 245 RA patients treated with TCZ were included. The logistic regression model demonstrated superior prediction performance across imaging stages, achieving AUC scores of 0.78 for patients without imaging changes, 0.73 for stage I, and 0.82 for stages II, III, and IV. Key features influencing predictions varied by imaging stage. The most important features were D-dimer concentration for patients without imaging changes, DAS28 grade for patients in stage I, and the physician's overall disease score (EGA) for patients in stages II, III, and IV, with SHAP values of 0.5180, 0.6661, and 1.3978, respectively.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential of machine learning to predict TCZ treatment outcomes and identify stage-specific features in patients with RA. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.