ArticleBMC rheumatology2025
Calibrated, explainable machine learning on routine laboratory data to characterize diagnostic assignment patterns in rheumatic diseases: a retrospective study of 12,085 patients.
Article in BMC rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOverlap in routine laboratory profiles complicates differential diagnosis of rheumatic diseases, particularly seronegative spondyloarthritis. We examined whether models trained on routine labs reproduce diagnostic assignment patterns and yield calibrated, explainable probabilities.
methodsWe analyzed a publicly available, fully de-identified dataset (n = 12,085). Adults (≥ 18 years) with confirmed diagnoses and ≤ 30% biomarker missingness were included. Nineteen routine variables (demographics, ESR/CRP, serology) plus four engineered features were used. Missingness (~ 14.5%) was imputed using MICE, variables were standardized, and the data were split 80/20 with stratification. Random Forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, CatBoost, and TabNet were trained with fixed, literature-informed hyperparameters. We assessed 5-fold CV, independent test performance, calibration (Brier/ECE), and SHAP; a predefined seronegative subgroup (RF/anti-CCP negative) was analyzed.
resultsXGBoost achieved the highest test accuracy (85.48%); Random Forest (83.78%) was selected for detailed interpretation due to superior calibration. Performance varied by disease: SLE recall was 97.9% compared to ankylosing spondylitis (AS), 57.6%. Among 2,417 test cases, 381 (15.76%) were misclassified; the most frequent error was AS misclassified as RA (109; 28.6%). SHAP ranked ESR/CRP, RF/anti-CCP, HLA-B27, and C3/C4 as dominant contributors. In seronegative patients (n = 390), the prevalence of HLA-B27 was higher (+ 6.5%; p = 0.024), and the prevalence of anti-La was lower (–11.6%; p = 0.001).
conclusionsRoutine laboratory data can be converted into calibrated, explainable probabilities that characterize diagnostic assignment patterns, rather than independent predictions. Given poor AS performance, the approach is not reliable for differentiating spondyloarthropathies from RA without additional clinical or imaging data. External/temporal validation, integration of clinical and imaging features, and prospective evaluation are needed.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.