Machine learning approaches to identify systemic lupus erythematosus in anti-nuclear antibody-positive patients using genomic data and electronic health records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has required at least a positive anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) titer (≥ 1:80), it remains challenging for clinicians to identify patients with SLE. This study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) approach to assist in the detection of SLE patients using genomic data and electronic health records. METHODS: Participants with a positive ANA (≥ 1:80) were enrolled from the Taiwan Precision Medicine Initiative cohort. The Taiwan Biobank version 2 array was used to detect single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. Six ML models, Logistic Regression, Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine, Light Gradient Boosting Machine, Gradient Tree Boosting, and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), were used to identify SLE patients. The importance of the clinical and genetic features was determined by Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) values. A logistic regression model was applied to identify genetic variations associated with SLE in the subset of patients with an ANA equal to or exceeding 1:640. RESULTS: A total of 946 SLE and 1,892 non-SLE controls were included in this analysis. Among the six ML models, RF and XGB demonstrated superior performance in the differentiation of SLE from non-SLE. The leading features in the SHAP diagram were anti-double strand DNA antibodies, ANA titers, AC4 ANA pattern, polygenic risk scores, complement levels, and SNPs. Additionally, in the subgroup with a high ANA titer (≥ 1:640), six SNPs positively associated with SLE and five SNPs negatively correlated with SLE were discovered. CONCLUSIONS: ML approaches offer the potential to assist in diagnosing SLE and uncovering novel SNPs in a group of patients with autoimmunity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".