Estimating individual treatment effect on disability progression in multiple sclerosis using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability progression in multiple sclerosis remains resistant to treatment. The absence of a suitable biomarker to allow for phase 2 clinical trials presents a high barrier for drug development. We propose to enable short proof-of-concept trials by increasing statistical power using a deep-learning predictive enrichment strategy. Specifically, a multi-headed multilayer perceptron is used to estimate the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) using baseline clinical and imaging features, and patients predicted to be most responsive are preferentially randomized into a trial. Leveraging data from six randomized clinical trials (n = 3,830), we first pre-trained the model on the subset of relapsing-remitting MS patients (n = 2,520), then fine-tuned it on a subset of primary progressive MS (PPMS) patients (n = 695). In a separate held-out test set of PPMS patients randomized to anti-CD20 antibodies or placebo (n = 297), the average treatment effect was larger for the 50% (HR, 0.492; 95% CI, 0.266-0.912; p = 0.0218) and 30% (HR, 0.361; 95% CI, 0.165-0.79; p = 0.008) predicted to be most responsive, compared to 0.743 (95% CI, 0.482-1.15; p = 0.179) for the entire group. The same model could also identify responders to laquinimod in another held-out test set of PPMS patients (n = 318). Finally, we show that using this model for predictive enrichment results in important increases in power.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".