MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394963702 · doi:10.2196/52344

Machine Learning–Based Prediction of Changes in the Clinical Condition of Patients With Complex Chronic Diseases: 2-Phase Pilot Prospective Single-Center Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4394963702 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Celia Alvarez-Romero, Alejandro Polo-Molina, Eugenio F. Sánchez‐Úbeda, Carlos Jimènez-Juan, Maria Pastora Cuadri-Benitez, José Antonio Rivas-González, José Portela, Rafael Palacios, Carlos Rodríguez-Morcillo García, Antonio Muñoz San Roque, Carlos Luís Parra-Calderón, Maria Dolores Nieto-Martin, Manuel Ollero-Baturone, Carlos Hernández-Quiles

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónEuropean Regional Development FundMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsObservational studyCenter (category theory)Single CenterMedicinePhase (matter)Prospective cohort studyPhysical therapyMedical physicsArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment is one of the most decisive prognostic factors in patients with complex chronic diseases. A more significant functional impairment indicates that the disease is progressing, which requires implementing diagnostic and therapeutic actions that stop the exacerbation of the disease. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to predict alterations in the clinical condition of patients with complex chronic diseases by predicting the Barthel Index (BI), to assess their clinical and functional status using an artificial intelligence model and data collected through an internet of things mobility device. METHODS: A 2-phase pilot prospective single-center observational study was designed. During both phases, patients were recruited, and a wearable activity tracker was allocated to gather physical activity data. Patients were categorized into class A (BI≤20; total dependence), class B (20 60; moderate or mild dependence, or independent). Data preprocessing and machine learning techniques were used to analyze mobility data. A decision tree was used to achieve a robust and interpretable model. To assess the quality of the predictions, several metrics including the mean absolute error, median absolute error, and root mean squared error were considered. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and Python for the machine learning modeling. RESULTS: Overall, 90 patients with complex chronic diseases were included: 50 during phase 1 (class A: n=10; class B: n=20; and class C: n=20) and 40 during phase 2 (class B: n=20 and class C: n=20). Most patients (n=85, 94%) had a caregiver. The mean value of the BI was 58.31 (SD 24.5). Concerning mobility aids, 60% (n=52) of patients required no aids, whereas the others required walkers (n=18, 20%), wheelchairs (n=15, 17%), canes (n=4, 7%), and crutches (n=1, 1%). Regarding clinical complexity, 85% (n=76) met patient with polypathology criteria with a mean of 2.7 (SD 1.25) categories, 69% (n=61) met the frailty criteria, and 21% (n=19) met the patients with complex chronic diseases criteria. The most characteristic symptoms were dyspnea (n=73, 82%), chronic pain (n=63, 70%), asthenia (n=62, 68%), and anxiety (n=41, 46%). Polypharmacy was presented in 87% (n=78) of patients. The most important variables for predicting the BI were identified as the maximum step count during evening and morning periods and the absence of a mobility device. The model exhibited consistency in the median prediction error with a median absolute error close to 5 in the training, validation, and production-like test sets. The model accuracy for identifying the BI class was 91%, 88%, and 90% in the training, validation, and test sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using commercially available mobility recording devices makes it possible to identify different mobility patterns and relate them to functional capacity in patients with polypathology according to the BI without using clinical parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.275
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicChronic Disease Management Strategies→French-language works237,207→