ArticleScientific reports2021
Precision medicine and machine learning towards the prediction of the outcome of potential celiac disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- The needle study: Machine learning as a new method for case-finding in celiac disease.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2026Article
- A model for predicting celiac disease among undiagnosed subjects established with data from the HUNT4 study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Predicting metabolic syndrome in adolescents from device-measured 24-h movement behaviors: a machine learning approach.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Machine learning models for predicting renal injury in patients with gout.Renal failure · 2025Article
- Article
- Toward Precision Medicine in Celiac Disease: Emerging Roles of Multiomics and Artificial Intelligence.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2025Review
- A machine learning tool for early identification of celiac disease autoimmunity.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Advancements in Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Determining risk and predictors of head and neck cancer treatment-related lymphedema: A clinicopathologic and dosimetric data mining approach using interpretable machine learning and ensemble feature selection.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- The Promise of Explainable AI in Digital Health for Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Application of artificial intelligence to corelate food formulations to disease risk prediction: a comprehensive review.Journal of food science and technology · 2023Review
- A comparative analysis of meta-heuristic optimization algorithms for feature selection on ML-based classification of heart-related diseases.The Journal of supercomputing · 2023Article
- Recognizing the Emergent and Submerged Iceberg of the Celiac Disease: ITAMA Project-Global Strategy Protocol.Pediatric reports · 2022Article
- Automated detection of celiac disease using Machine Learning Algorithms.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Celiac disease: From genetics to epigenetics.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Potential Celiac Patients (PCD) bear the Celiac Disease (CD) genetic predisposition, a significant production of antihuman transglutaminase antibodies, but no morphological changes in the small bowel mucosa. A minority of patients (17%) showed clinical symptoms and need a gluten free diet at time of diagnosis, while the majority progress over several years (up to a decade) without any clinical problem neither a progression of the small intestine mucosal damage even when they continued to assume gluten in their diet. Recently we developed a traditional multivariate approach to predict the natural history, on the base of the information at enrolment (time 0) by a discriminant analysis model. Still, the traditional multivariate model requires stringent assumptions that may not be answered in the clinical setting. Starting from a follow-up dataset available for PCD, we propose the application of Machine Learning (ML) methodologies to extend the analysis on available clinical data and to detect most influent features predicting the outcome. These features, collected at time of diagnosis, should be capable to classify patients who will develop duodenal atrophy from those who will remain potential. Four ML methods were adopted to select features predictive of the outcome; the feature selection procedure was indeed capable to reduce the number of overall features from 85 to 19. ML methodologies (Random Forests, Extremely Randomized Trees, and Boosted Trees, Logistic Regression) were adopted, obtaining high values of accuracy: all report an accuracy above 75%. The specificity score was always more than 75% also, with two of the considered methods over 98%, while the best performance of sensitivity was 60%. The best model, optimized Boosted Trees, was able to classify PCD starting from the selected 19 features with an accuracy of 0.80, sensitivity of 0.58 and specificity of 0.84. Finally, with this work, we are able to categorize PCD patients that can more likely develop overt CD using ML. ML techniques appear to be an innovative approach to predict the outcome of PCD, since they provide a step forward in the direction of precision medicine aimed to customize healthcare, medical therapies, decisions, and practices tailoring the clinical management of PCD children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.