Early Diagnosis of Hereditary Angioedema in Japan Based on a US Medical Dataset: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE), a rare genetic disease, induces acute attacks of swelling in various regions of the body. Its prevalence is estimated to be 1 in 50,000 people, with no reported bias among different ethnic groups. However, considering the estimated prevalence, the number of patients in Japan diagnosed with HAE remains approximately 1 in 250,000, which means that only 20% of potential HAE cases are identified. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model that can detect patients with suspected HAE using medical history data (medical claims, prescriptions, and electronic medical records [EMRs]) in the United States. We also aimed to validate the detection performance of the model for HAE cases using the Japanese dataset. METHODS: The HAE patient and control groups were identified using the US claims and EMR datasets. We analyzed the characteristics of the diagnostic history of patients with HAE and developed an AI model to predict the probability of HAE based on a generalized linear model and bootstrap method. The model was then applied to the EMR data of the Kyoto University Hospital to verify its applicability to the Japanese dataset. RESULTS: Precision and sensitivity were measured to validate the model performance. Using the comprehensive US dataset, the precision score was 2% in the initial model development step. Our model can screen out suspected patients, where 1 in 50 of these patients have HAE. In addition, in the validation step with Japanese EMR data, the precision score was 23.6%, which exceeded our expectations. We achieved a sensitivity score of 61.5% for the US dataset and 37.6% for the validation exercise using data from a single Japanese hospital. Overall, our model could predict patients with typical HAE symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that our AI model can detect HAE in patients with typical symptoms and is effective in Japanese data. However, further prospective clinical studies are required to investigate whether this model can be used to diagnose HAE.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".