Prediction of the disease course in Friedreich ataxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored whether disease severity of Friedreich ataxia can be predicted using data from clinical examinations. From the database of the European Friedreich Ataxia Consortium for Translational Studies (EFACTS) data from up to five examinations of 602 patients with genetically confirmed FRDA was included. Clinical instruments and important symptoms of FRDA were identified as targets for prediction, while variables such as genetics, age of disease onset and first symptom of the disease were used as predictors. We used modelling techniques including generalised linear models, support-vector-machines and decision trees. The scale for rating and assessment of ataxia (SARA) and the activities of daily living (ADL) could be predicted with predictive errors quantified by root-mean-squared-errors (RMSE) of 6.49 and 5.83, respectively. Also, we were able to achieve reasonable performance for loss of ambulation (ROC-AUC score of 0.83). However, predictions for the SCA functional assessment (SCAFI) and presence of cardiological symptoms were difficult. In conclusion, we demonstrate that some clinical features of FRDA can be predicted with reasonable error; being a first step towards future clinical applications of predictive modelling. In contrast, targets where predictions were difficult raise the question whether there are yet unknown variables driving the clinical phenotype of FRDA.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".