Multivariable Prediction Model for Suspected Ocular Myasthenia Gravis: Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosing ocular myasthenia gravis (OMG) remains challenging despite recent diagnostic advances. We addressed this challenge by developing and validating a multivariable prediction model that estimates the OMG probability given the results of any partial selection of available diagnostic tests. METHODS: The source data for our model were retrieved from our blinded prospective diagnostic accuracy study at the University Hospital Zurich (USZ). Patients with ptosis and/or diplopia whose presentation was suspicious for OMG underwent comprehensive diagnostic testing. An independent neuromuscular specialist made the final diagnosis. These data were used to fit and validate a Bayesian network model against additional retrospective USZ and the University of Toronto (UoT) patient data. The primary outcome was to predict the likelihood of a positive OMG diagnosis given the available diagnostic tests. For any set of tests, the model returns an OMG probability together with 95% credible intervals, indicating the prediction uncertainty. RESULTS: Of 89 patients included in the development of the model, 39 were diagnosed with OMG. Based on our Bayesian network model, the following variables were the most useful predictors in descending order: edrophonium test, acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibodies), single-fiber electromyogram (sfEMG), repetitive nerve stimulations (RNS) facial nerve, RNS accessory nerve, Besinger score, ice test, sustained upgaze test, dysarthria, dyspnea, dysphagia, diplopia, ptosis, age, and sex. The model was validated by determining the mean error rate and the area under the curve (AUC) by both 10-fold cross-validation and prediction on the retrospective USZ and UoT validation data consisting of 69 and 24 patients, respectively. Of all variables, edrophonium (sensitivity 94%, specificity 90%) and AChR antibody testing (sensitivity 85%, specificity 96%) showed the highest predictive value during validation with an AUC of 0.912 and 0.872, respectively. Incorporating more predictors reduced the predictive error in both validation data sets. CONCLUSIONS: Our prediction model serves as a basis to predict the OMG likelihood. It underwent successful internal and external validation and can be used to assist in clinical decision making.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".