Machine Learning and Symptom Patterns in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Web-Based Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), a progressive spinal cord injury caused by spinal cord compression from degenerative pathology, often presents with neck pain, sensorimotor dysfunction in the upper or lower limbs, gait disturbance, and bladder or bowel dysfunction. Its symptomatology is very heterogeneous, making early detection as well as the measurement or understanding of the underlying factors and their consequences challenging. Increasingly, evidence suggests that DCM may consist of subgroups of the disease, which are yet to be defined. Objective This study aimed to explore whether machine learning can identify clinically meaningful groups of patients based solely on clinical features. Methods A survey was conducted wherein participants were asked to specify the clinical features they had experienced, their principal presenting complaint, and time to diagnosis as well as demographic information, including disease severity, age, and sex. K-means clustering was used to divide respondents into clusters according to their clinical features using the Euclidean distance measure and the Hartigan-Wong algorithm. The clinical significance of groups was subsequently explored by comparing their time to presentation, time with disease severity, and other demographics. Results After a review of both ancillary and cluster data, it was determined by consensus that the optimal number of DCM response groups was 3. In Cluster 1, there were 40 respondents, and the ratio of male to female participants was 13:21. In Cluster 2, there were 92 respondents, with a male to female participant ratio of 27:65. Cluster 3 had 57 respondents, with a male to female participant ratio of 9:48. A total of 6 people did not report biological sex in Cluster 1. The mean age in this Cluster was 56.2 (SD 10.5) years; in Cluster 2, it was 54.7 (SD 9.63) years; and in Cluster 3, it was 51.8 (SD 8.4) years. Patients across clusters significantly differed in the total number of clinical features reported, with more clinical features in Cluster 3 and the least clinical features in Cluster 1 (Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test: χ22=159.46; P<.001). There was no relationship between the pattern of clinical features and severity. There were also no differences between clusters regarding time since diagnosis and time with DCM. Conclusions Using machine learning and patient-reported experience, 3 groups of patients with DCM were defined, which were different in the number of clinical features but not in the severity of DCM or time with DCM. Although a clearer biological basis for the clusters may have been missed, the findings are consistent with the emerging observation that DCM is a heterogeneous disease, difficult to diagnose or stratify. There is a place for machine learning methods to efficiently assist with pattern recognition. However, the challenge lies in creating quality data sets necessary to derive benefit from such approaches.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".