Machine Learning Methods for the Diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Healthy Subjects: Retrospective Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Airflow limitation is a critical physiological feature in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), for which long-term exposure to noxious substances, including tobacco smoke, is an established risk. However, not all long-term smokers develop COPD, meaning that other risk factors exist. Objective This study aimed to predict the risk factors for COPD diagnosis using machine learning in an annual medical check-up database. Methods In this retrospective observational cohort study (ARTDECO [Analysis of Risk Factors to Detect COPD]), annual medical check-up records for all Hitachi Ltd employees in Japan collected from April 1998 to March 2019 were analyzed. Employees who provided informed consent via an opt-out model were screened and those aged 30 to 75 years without a prior diagnosis of COPD/asthma or a history of cancer were included. The database included clinical measurements (eg, pulmonary function tests) and questionnaire responses. To predict the risk factors for COPD diagnosis within a 3-year period, the Gradient Boosting Decision Tree machine learning (XGBoost) method was applied as a primary approach, with logistic regression as a secondary method. A diagnosis of COPD was made when the ratio of the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) to prebronchodilator forced vital capacity (FVC) was <0.7 during two consecutive examinations. Results Of the 26,101 individuals screened, 1213 met the exclusion criteria, and thus, 24,815 individuals were included in the analysis. The top 10 predictors for COPD diagnosis were FEV1/FVC, smoking status, allergic symptoms, cough, pack years, hemoglobin A1c, serum albumin, mean corpuscular volume, percent predicted vital capacity, and percent predicted value of FEV1. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the XGBoost model and the logistic regression model were 0.956 and 0.943, respectively. Conclusions Using a machine learning model in this longitudinal database, we identified a number of parameters as risk factors other than smoking exposure or lung function to support general practitioners and occupational health physicians to predict the development of COPD. Further research to confirm our results is warranted, as our analysis involved a database used only in Japan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".