Validity of Machine Learning in Predicting Giant Cell Arteritis Flare After Glucocorticoids Tapering.
algorithm
giant cell (temporal) arteritis
glucocorticoids
machine learning
precision medicine
Journal
Frontiers in immunology
ISSN: 1664-3224
Titre abrégé: Front Immunol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101560960
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
23
01
2022
accepted:
07
03
2022
entrez:
22
4
2022
pubmed:
23
4
2022
medline:
26
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Inferential statistical methods failed in identifying reliable biomarkers and risk factors for relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA) after glucocorticoids (GCs) tapering. A ML approach allows to handle complex non-linear relationships between patient attributes that are hard to model with traditional statistical methods, merging them to output a forecast or a probability for a given outcome. The objective of the study was to assess whether ML algorithms can predict GCA relapse after GCs tapering. GCA patients who underwent GCs therapy and regular follow-up visits for at least 12 months, were retrospectively analyzed and used for implementing 3 ML algorithms, namely, Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), and Random Forest (RF). The outcome of interest was disease relapse within 3 months during GCs tapering. After a ML variable selection method, based on a XGBoost wrapper, an attribute core set was used to train and test each algorithm using 5-fold cross-validation. The performance of each algorithm in both phases was assessed in terms of accuracy and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). The dataset consisted of 107 GCA patients (73 women, 68.2%) with mean age ( ± SD) 74.1 ( ± 8.5) years at presentation. GCA flare occurred in 40/107 patients (37.4%) within 3 months after GCs tapering. As a result of ML wrapper, the attribute core set with the least number of variables used for algorithm training included presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and concomitant polymyalgia rheumatica as well as erythrocyte sedimentation rate level at GCs baseline. RF showed the best performance, being significantly superior to other algorithms in accuracy (RF 71.4% vs LR 70.4% vs DT 62.9%). Consistently, RF precision (72.1%) was significantly greater than those of LR (62.6%) and DT (50.8%). Conversely, LR was superior to RF and DT in recall (RF 60% vs LR 62.5% vs DT 47.5%). Moreover, RF AUROC (0.76) was more significant compared to LR (0.73) and DT (0.65). RF algorithm can predict GCA relapse after GCs tapering with sufficient accuracy. To date, this is one of the most accurate predictive modelings for such outcome. This ML method represents a reproducible tool, capable of supporting clinicians in GCA patient management.
Sections du résumé
Background
Inferential statistical methods failed in identifying reliable biomarkers and risk factors for relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA) after glucocorticoids (GCs) tapering. A ML approach allows to handle complex non-linear relationships between patient attributes that are hard to model with traditional statistical methods, merging them to output a forecast or a probability for a given outcome.
Objective
The objective of the study was to assess whether ML algorithms can predict GCA relapse after GCs tapering.
Methods
GCA patients who underwent GCs therapy and regular follow-up visits for at least 12 months, were retrospectively analyzed and used for implementing 3 ML algorithms, namely, Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), and Random Forest (RF). The outcome of interest was disease relapse within 3 months during GCs tapering. After a ML variable selection method, based on a XGBoost wrapper, an attribute core set was used to train and test each algorithm using 5-fold cross-validation. The performance of each algorithm in both phases was assessed in terms of accuracy and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
Results
The dataset consisted of 107 GCA patients (73 women, 68.2%) with mean age ( ± SD) 74.1 ( ± 8.5) years at presentation. GCA flare occurred in 40/107 patients (37.4%) within 3 months after GCs tapering. As a result of ML wrapper, the attribute core set with the least number of variables used for algorithm training included presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and concomitant polymyalgia rheumatica as well as erythrocyte sedimentation rate level at GCs baseline. RF showed the best performance, being significantly superior to other algorithms in accuracy (RF 71.4% vs LR 70.4% vs DT 62.9%). Consistently, RF precision (72.1%) was significantly greater than those of LR (62.6%) and DT (50.8%). Conversely, LR was superior to RF and DT in recall (RF 60% vs LR 62.5% vs DT 47.5%). Moreover, RF AUROC (0.76) was more significant compared to LR (0.73) and DT (0.65).
Conclusions
RF algorithm can predict GCA relapse after GCs tapering with sufficient accuracy. To date, this is one of the most accurate predictive modelings for such outcome. This ML method represents a reproducible tool, capable of supporting clinicians in GCA patient management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35450069
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.860877
pmc: PMC9017227
doi:
Substances chimiques
Glucocorticoids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
860877Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Venerito, Emmi, Cantarini, Leccese, Fornaro, Fabiani, Lascaro, Coladonato, Mattioli, Righetti, Malandrino, Tangaro, Palermo, Urban, Conticini, Frediani, Iannone and Lopalco.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Rheumatol. 2015 Jul;42(7):1213-7
pubmed: 25877501
Clin Med (Lond). 2010 Aug;10(4):381-6
pubmed: 20849016
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(19):e3524
pubmed: 27175649
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 25;347(4):261-71
pubmed: 12140303
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 Feb;55(2):347-56
pubmed: 26385368
Arthritis Rheum. 1990 Aug;33(8):1122-8
pubmed: 2202311
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008 May-Jun;26(3 Suppl 49):S30-4
pubmed: 18799050
Dermatopathology (Basel). 2021 Sep 01;8(3):418-425
pubmed: 34563035
Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Oct 15;49(5):703-8
pubmed: 14558057
Medicine (Baltimore). 2011 May;90(3):186-193
pubmed: 21512412
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2001 Mar-Apr;19(2):171-6
pubmed: 11326479
Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan;79(1):19-30
pubmed: 31270110
Methods Inf Med. 2015;54(2):198-9
pubmed: 25658987
J Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Mar 1;28(2):e334-e339
pubmed: 34542990
J Infect Dis. 2021 Oct 13;224(7):1198-1208
pubmed: 32386061
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Apr;64(4):581-8
pubmed: 22184094
Intern Emerg Med. 2021 Sep;16(6):1457-1465
pubmed: 33387201
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013 Dec;9(12):731-40
pubmed: 24189842
Front Neurosci. 2021 May 28;15:674055
pubmed: 34122000
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Mar;68(3):318-23
pubmed: 18413441