MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135579011 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0428

A computational method to differentiate normal individuals, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients using serum biomarkers

2014· article· en· W2135579011 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan J. Heard, Joshua M. Rosvold, Marvin J. Fritzler, Hani El‐Gabalawy, J. Preston Wiley, Roman Krawetz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRheumatoid arthritisOsteoarthritisCohortMedicineArthritisDecision treeInternal medicinePathologyMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to develop a method for categorizing normal individuals (normal, n = 100) as well as patients with osteoarthritis (OA, n = 100), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 100) based on a panel of inflammatory cytokines expressed in serum samples. Two panels of inflammatory proteins were used as training sets in the construction of two separate artificial neural networks (ANNs). The first training set consisted of all proteins (38 in total) and the second consisted of only the significantly different proteins expressed (12 in total) between at least two patient groups. Both ANNs obtained high levels of sensitivity and specificity, with the first and second ANN each diagnosing 100% of test set patients correctly. These results were then verified by re-investigating the entire dataset using a decision tree algorithm. We show that ANNs can be used for the accurate differentiation between serum samples of patients with OA, a diagnosed RA patient comparator cohort and normal/control cohort. Using neural network and systems biology approaches to manage large datasets derived from high-throughput proteomics should be further explored and considered for diagnosing diseases with complex pathologies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207