Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35450069›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022

Validity of Machine Learning in Predicting Giant Cell Arteritis Flare After Glucocorticoids Tapering.

Vincenzo Venerito, Giacomo Emmi, Luca Cantarini, Pietro Leccese, Marco Fornaro, Claudia Fabiani, Nancy Lascaro, Laura Coladonato, Irene Mattioli, Giulia Righetti and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Vincenzo VeneritoDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Giacomo EmmiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Luca CantariniResearch Centre of Systemic Autoinflammatory Diseases, Behçet's Disease Clinic and Rheumatology-Ophthalmology Collaborative Uveitis Centre, Department of Medical Sciences, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Pietro LecceseRheumatology Department of Lucania, San Carlo Hospital of Potenza, Potenza, Italy.
Marco FornaroDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Claudia FabianiOphthalmology Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Nancy LascaroRheumatology Department of Lucania, San Carlo Hospital of Potenza, Potenza, Italy.
Laura ColadonatoDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Irene MattioliDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Giulia RighettiDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Danilo MalandrinoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Sabina TangaroDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.
Adalgisa PalermoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Maria Letizia UrbanDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Edoardo ConticiniResearch Centre of Systemic Autoinflammatory Diseases, Behçet's Disease Clinic and Rheumatology-Ophthalmology Collaborative Uveitis Centre, Department of Medical Sciences, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Bruno FredianiResearch Centre of Systemic Autoinflammatory Diseases, Behçet's Disease Clinic and Rheumatology-Ophthalmology Collaborative Uveitis Centre, Department of Medical Sciences, Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Florenzo IannoneDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Giuseppe LopalcoDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
University of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Siena · ITOspedale San Carlo · ITIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Giant Cell ArteritisAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGlucocorticoidsHumansMachine LearningMaleRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesGlucocorticoidsalgorithmgiant cell (temporal) arteritisglucocorticoidsmachine learningprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID35450069
PMCPMC9017227
OpenAlexW4226108726

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.