Accurate classification of secondary progression in multiple sclerosis using a decision tree.
Multiple sclerosis
classification
decision tree
secondary progressive
Journal
Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)
ISSN: 1477-0970
Titre abrégé: Mult Scler
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9509185
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
3
12
2020
medline:
28
9
2021
entrez:
2
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The absence of reliable imaging or biological markers of phenotype transition in multiple sclerosis (MS) makes assignment of current phenotype status difficult. The authors sought to determine whether clinical information can be used to accurately assign current disease phenotypes. Data from the clinical visits of 14,387 MS patients in Sweden were collected. Classifying algorithms based on several demographic and clinical factors were examined. Results obtained from the best classifier when predicting neurologist recorded disease classification were replicated in an independent cohort from British Columbia and were compared to a previously published algorithm and clinical judgment of three neurologists. A decision tree (the classifier) containing only most recently available expanded disability scale status score and age obtained 89.3% (95% confidence intervals (CIs): 88.8-89.8) classification accuracy, defined as concordance with the latest reported status. Validation in the independent cohort resulted in 82.0% (95% CI: 81.0-83.1) accuracy. A previously published classification algorithm with slight modifications achieved 77.8% (95% CI: 77.1-78.4) accuracy. With complete patient history of 100 patients, three neurologists obtained 84.3% accuracy compared with 85% for the classifier using the same data. The classifier can be used to standardize definitions of disease phenotype across different cohorts. Clinically, this model could assist neurologists by providing additional information.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The absence of reliable imaging or biological markers of phenotype transition in multiple sclerosis (MS) makes assignment of current phenotype status difficult.
OBJECTIVE
The authors sought to determine whether clinical information can be used to accurately assign current disease phenotypes.
METHODS
Data from the clinical visits of 14,387 MS patients in Sweden were collected. Classifying algorithms based on several demographic and clinical factors were examined. Results obtained from the best classifier when predicting neurologist recorded disease classification were replicated in an independent cohort from British Columbia and were compared to a previously published algorithm and clinical judgment of three neurologists.
RESULTS
A decision tree (the classifier) containing only most recently available expanded disability scale status score and age obtained 89.3% (95% confidence intervals (CIs): 88.8-89.8) classification accuracy, defined as concordance with the latest reported status. Validation in the independent cohort resulted in 82.0% (95% CI: 81.0-83.1) accuracy. A previously published classification algorithm with slight modifications achieved 77.8% (95% CI: 77.1-78.4) accuracy. With complete patient history of 100 patients, three neurologists obtained 84.3% accuracy compared with 85% for the classifier using the same data.
CONCLUSION
The classifier can be used to standardize definitions of disease phenotype across different cohorts. Clinically, this model could assist neurologists by providing additional information.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33263261
doi: 10.1177/1352458520975323
pmc: PMC8227440
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1240-1249Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : MOP-93646
Pays : Canada
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Lancet. 2018 Mar 31;391(10127):1263-1273
pubmed: 29576505
Neurology. 2014 Jul 15;83(3):278-86
pubmed: 24871874
Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52
pubmed: 6685237
Mult Scler. 2008 Apr;14(3):314-24
pubmed: 18208898
Neurology. 1996 Apr;46(4):907-11
pubmed: 8780061
Neurology. 2010 Jun 15;74(24):2004-15
pubmed: 20548045
Eur J Neurol. 2015 Jun;22(6):990-1000
pubmed: 25846809
Brain. 2016 Sep;139(Pt 9):2395-405
pubmed: 27401521
Front Neurol. 2017 Nov 10;8:577
pubmed: 29176956
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014 Jan;85(1):67-75
pubmed: 23486991
Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2012;(195):13-9
pubmed: 23278651
Ann Neurol. 2009 Oct;66(4):460-71
pubmed: 19847908