Predicting a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis using primary care health records – a machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ankylosing spondylitis is the second most common cause of inflammatory arthritis. However, a successful diagnosis can take a decade to confirm from symptom onset (via x-rays). The aim of this study was to use machine learning methods to develop a profile of the characteristics of people who are likely to be given a diagnosis of AS in future. The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank was used. Patients with ankylosing spondylitis were identified using their routine data and matched with controls who had no record of a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis or axial spondyloarthritis. Data was analysed separately for men and women. The model was developed using feature/variable selection and principal component analysis to develop decision trees. The decision tree with the highest average F value was selected and validated with a test dataset. The model for men indicated that lower back pain, uveitis, and NSAID use under age 20 is associated with AS development. The model for women showed an older age of symptom presentation compared to men with back pain and multiple pain relief medications. The models showed good prediction (positive predictive value 70%-80%) in test data but in the general population where prevalence is very low (0.09% of the population in this dataset) the positive predictive value would be very low (0.33%-0.25%). Machine learning can be used to help profile and understand the characteristics of people who will develop AS, and in test datasets with artificially high prevalence, will perform well. However, when applied to a general population with low prevalence rates, such as that in primary care, the positive predictive value for even the best model would be 1.4%. Multiple models may be needed to narrow down the population over time to improve the predictive value and therefore reduce the time to diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".