Machine Learning-based Prediction Models for Diagnosis and Prognosis in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is increasing interest in machine learning-based prediction models in inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD]. We synthesised and critically appraised studies comparing machine learning vs traditional statistical models, using routinely available clinical data for risk prediction in IBD. METHODS: Through a systematic review till January 1, 2021, we identified cohort studies that derived and/or validated machine learning models, based on routinely collected clinical data in patients with IBD, to predict the risk of harbouring or developing adverse clinical outcomes, and reported its predictive performance against a traditional statistical model for the same outcome. We appraised the risk of bias in these studies using the Prediction model Risk of Bias ASsessment [PROBAST] tool. RESULTS: We included 13 studies on machine learning-based prediction models in IBD, encompassing themes of predicting treatment response to biologics and thiopurines and predicting longitudinal disease activity and complications and outcomes in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. The most common machine learning models used were tree-based algorithms, which are classification approaches achieved through supervised learning. Machine learning models outperformed traditional statistical models in risk prediction. However, most models were at high risk of bias, and only one was externally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning-based prediction models based on routinely collected data generally perform better than traditional statistical models in risk prediction in IBD, though frequently have high risk of bias. Future studies examining these approaches are warranted, with special focus on external validation and clinical applicability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".