ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Machine Learning for Predicting Recurrent Course in Uveitis Using Baseline Clinical Characteristics.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The expanding horizon: Role of widefield imaging in uveitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Explainable machine learning-based identification of transcriptomic biomarkers in CD1c+ dendritic cells for non-infectious uveitis: an integrative analysis of bulk RNA-seq data.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Construction and validation of a multicenter predictive model for neonatal hypoglycemia risk in infants of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- The Evolution of Artificial Intelligence in Ocular Toxoplasmosis Detection: A Scoping Review on Diagnostic Models, Data Challenges, and Future Directions.Infectious disease reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We developed and evaluated machine learning models for predicting the risk of recurrent uveitis using baseline clinical characteristics, to inform clinical decision-making and risk stratification. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Ocular Autoimmune Systemic Inflammatory Infectious Study registry, including 966 patients (1432 eyes) with uveitis. Three machine learning classifiers-random Forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and radial basis function support vector classifier-were trained on preprocessed baseline demographic and clinical data. Predictors were selected through bivariate analysis with false discovery rate correction. Models were optimized using grid search with five-fold stratified cross-validation. Performance was evaluated on a hold-out test set using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and Shapley additive explanations values for feature importance. Results: The random Forest model achieved the highest test accuracy (0.77), with high specificity (0.93) but modest sensitivity (0.44) for identifying recurrences. eXtreme Gradient Boosting and radial basis function support vector classifier showed comparable accuracies (0.73 and 0.74, respectively) but slightly lower sensitivities. Shapley additive explanation analysis identified vitreous haze, retrolental cells, and noninfectious etiology as key predictors. Learning curves indicated that model performance stabilized with the available sample size, suggesting adequate training data. Conclusions: Machine learning models, particularly random Forest, effectively identified patients at low risk of uveitis recurrence, offering high specificity. However, sensitivity remained limited, highlighting challenges in predicting infrequent events in a heterogeneous disease population.
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.