MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185595341 · doi:10.1145/3477127.3477128

Prediction of quality of life in people with ALS

2021· article· en· W3185595341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Markella Antoniadi, Miriam Galvin, Mark Heverin, Orla Hardiman, Catherine Mooney

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)Logistic regressionAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisMedicinePhysical therapyDiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a rare neurodegenerative disease that causes a rapid decline in motor functions and has a fatal trajectory. ALS is currently incurable, so the aim of the treatment is mostly to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life (QoL) for the patients. The goal of this study is to develop a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) to alert clinicians when a patient is at risk of experiencing low QoL. The source of data was the Irish ALS Registry and interviews with the 90 patients and their primary informal caregiver at three time-points. In this dataset, there were two different scores to measure a person's overall QoL, based on the McGill QoL (MQoL) Questionnaire and we worked towards the prediction of both. We used Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) for the development of the predictive models, which was compared to a logistic regression baseline model. Additionally, we used Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) to examine if that would increase model performance and SHAP (SHapley Additive explanations) as a technique to provide local and global explanations to the outputs as well as to select the most important features. The total calculated MQoL score was predicted accurately using three features - age at disease onset, ALSFRS-R score for orthopnoea and the caregiver's status pre-caregiving - with a F1-score on the test set equal to 0.81, recall of 0.78, and precision of 0.84. The addition of two extra features (caregiver's age and the ALSFRS-R score for speech) produced similar outcomes (F1-score 0.79, recall 0.70 and precision 0.90).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGAPP Applied Computing ReviewSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207