Identifying Homogeneous Subgroups in Neurological Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The reliable stratification of homogeneous subgroups and the prediction of future clinical outcomes within heterogeneous neurological disorders is a particularly challenging task. Nonetheless, it is essential for the implementation of targeted care and effective therapeutic interventions. Objective This study was designed to assess the value of a recently developed regression tool from the family of unbiased recursive partitioning methods in comparison to established statistical approaches (eg, linear and logistic regression) for predicting clinical endpoints and for prospective patients' stratification for clinical trials. Methods A retrospective, longitudinal analysis of prospectively collected neurological data from the European Multicenter study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI) network was undertaken on C4-C6 cervical sensorimotor complete subjects. Predictors were based on a broad set of early (<2 weeks) clinical assessments. Endpoints were based on later clinical examinations of upper extremity motor scores and recovery of motor levels, at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Prediction accuracy for each statistical analysis was quantified by resampling techniques. Results For all settings, overlapping confidence intervals indicated similar prediction accuracy of unbiased recursive partitioning to established statistical approaches. In addition, unbiased recursive partitioning provided a direct way of identification of more homogeneous subgroups. The partitioning is carried out in a data-driven manner, independently from a priori decisions or predefined thresholds. Conclusion Unbiased recursive partitioning techniques may improve prediction of future clinical endpoints and the planning of future SCI clinical trials by providing easily implementable, data-driven rationales for early patient stratification based on simple decision rules and clinical read-outs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".