Psychosocial profiles and their predictors in epilepsy using patient‐reported outcomes and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To apply unsupervised machine learning to patient-reported outcomes to identify clusters of epilepsy patients exhibiting unique psychosocial characteristics. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients seen at the Calgary Comprehensive Epilepsy Program outpatient clinics with complete patient-reported outcome measures on quality of life, health state valuation, depression, and epilepsy severity and disability were studied. Data were acquired at each patient's first clinic visit. We used k-means++ to segregate the population into three unique clusters. We then used multinomial regression to determine factors that were statistically associated with patient assignment to each cluster. RESULTS: We identified 462 consecutive patients with complete patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data. Post hoc analysis of each cluster revealed one reporting elevated measures of psychosocial health on all five PROMs ("high psychosocial health" cluster), one with intermediate measures ("intermediate" cluster), and one with poor overall measures of psychosocial health ("poor psychosocial health" cluster). Failing to achieve at least 1 year of seizure freedom (relative risk [RR] = 4.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.13-9.09) predicted placement in the "intermediate" cluster relative to the "high" cluster. In addition, failing to achieve seizure freedom, social determinants of health, including the need for partially or completely subsidized income support (RR = 6.10, 95% CI = 2.79-13.31, P < .001) and inability to drive (RR = 4.03, 95% CI = 1.6-10.00, P = .003), and a history of a psychiatric disorder (RR = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.46-6.85, P = .003) were associated with the "poor" cluster relative to the "high" cluster. SIGNIFICANCE: Seizure-related factors appear to drive placement in the "intermediate" cluster, with social determinants driving placement in the "poor" cluster, suggesting a threshold effect. Precision intervention based on cluster assignment, with an initial emphasis on improving social support and careful titration of medications for those reporting the worst psychosocial health, could help optimize health for patients with epilepsy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".