ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Predicting clinical events characterizing the progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis via machine learning approaches using routine visits data: a feasibility study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Distinguishing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from radiculopathy using machine learning to analyze nerve conduction data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that results in death within a short time span (3-5 years). One of the major challenges in treating ALS is its highly heterogeneous disease progression and the lack of effective prognostic tools to forecast it. The main aim of this study was, then, to test the feasibility of predicting relevant clinical outcomes that characterize the progression of ALS with a two-year prediction horizon via artificial intelligence techniques using routine visits data.
methodsThree classification problems were considered: predicting death (binary problem), predicting death or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) (multiclass problem), and predicting death or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (multiclass problem). Two supervised learning models, a logistic regression (LR) and a deep learning multilayer perceptron (MLP), were trained ensuring technical robustness and reproducibility. Moreover, to provide insights into model explainability and result interpretability, model coefficients for LR and Shapley values for both LR and MLP were considered to characterize the relationship between each variable and the outcome.
resultsOn the one hand, predicting death was successful as both models yielded F1 scores and accuracy well above 0.7. The model explainability analysis performed for this outcome allowed for the understanding of how different methodological approaches consider the input variables when performing the prediction. On the other hand, predicting death alongside PEG or NIV proved to be much more challenging (F1 scores and accuracy in the 0.4-0.6 interval).
conclusionsIn conclusion, predicting death due to ALS proved to be feasible. However, predicting PEG or NIV in a multiclass fashion proved to be unfeasible with these data, regardless of the complexity of the methodological approach. The observed results suggest a potential ceiling on the amount of information extractable from the database, e.g., due to the intrinsic difficulty of the prediction tasks at hand, or to the absence of crucial predictors that are, however, not currently collected during routine practice.
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.