Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31270349›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Machine learning approaches to predict lupus disease activity from gene expression data.

Brian Kegerreis, Michelle D Catalina, Prathyusha Bachali, Nicholas S Geraci, Adam C Labonte, Chen Zeng, Nathaniel Stearrett, Keith A Crandall, Peter E Lipsky, Amrie C Grammer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Generative prediction of causal gene sets responsible for complex traits.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Brian KegerreisRILITE Research Institute and AMPEL BioSolutions, 250 W Main St, Ste 300, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9036-370X
Michelle D CatalinaRILITE Research Institute and AMPEL BioSolutions, 250 W Main St, Ste 300, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7884-579X
Prathyusha BachaliRILITE Research Institute and AMPEL BioSolutions, 250 W Main St, Ste 300, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7304-1987
Nicholas S GeraciRILITE Research Institute and AMPEL BioSolutions, 250 W Main St, Ste 300, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4294-9188
Adam C LabonteRILITE Research Institute and AMPEL BioSolutions, 250 W Main St, Ste 300, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7378-2638
Chen ZengDepartment of Physics, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 20052, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7778-6388
Nathaniel StearrettComputational Biology Institute, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 20052, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3210-0201
Keith A CrandallComputational Biology Institute, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 20052, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0836-3389
Peter E LipskyRILITE Research Institute and AMPEL BioSolutions, 250 W Main St, Ste 300, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9287-1676
Amrie C GrammerRILITE Research Institute and AMPEL BioSolutions, 250 W Main St, Ste 300, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, USA. amriegrammer@comcast.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7142-2284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of gene expression data to predict systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity is a significant challenge because of the high degree of heterogeneity among patients and study cohorts, especially those collected on different microarray platforms. Here we deployed machine learning approaches to integrate gene expression data from three SLE data sets and used it to classify patients as having active or inactive disease as characterized by standard clinical composite outcome measures. Both raw whole blood gene expression data and informative gene modules generated by Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis from purified leukocyte populations were employed with various classification algorithms. Classifiers were evaluated by 10-fold cross-validation across three combined data sets or by training and testing in independent data sets, the latter of which amplified the effects of technical variation. A random forest classifier achieved a peak classification accuracy of 83 percent under 10-fold cross-validation, but its performance could be severely affected by technical variation among data sets. The use of gene modules rather than raw gene expression was more robust, achieving classification accuracies of approximately 70 percent regardless of how the training and testing sets were formed. Fine-tuning the algorithms and parameter sets may generate sufficient accuracy to be informative as a standalone estimate of disease activity.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGene ExpressionGene Expression ProfilingMachine LearningDisease ProgressionGene Expression RegulationGene Regulatory NetworksHumansLupus Erythematosus, SystemicMolecular Sequence AnnotationROC CurveTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID31270349
PMCPMC6610624

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.