Machine learning classification of inflammatory bowel disease activity using white blood cell subsets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The lack of a rapid, validated, consistent test for tracking disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is currently a major challenge. Currently used biomarkers have notable disadvantages, such as the slow processing (faecal calprotectin) and the lack of specificity (bloodwork). White blood cell (WBC) subsets, also known as 'the differential', are commonly obtained in evaluating IBD patients, but there is minimal evidence on how these subsets relate to disease activity. Given the interplay between immune cells, it is possible that complex patterns in WBC subsets could be used to classify IBD activity. Machine learning (ML) could be used to reveal these changes. The aim of this study was to classify IBD activity via routine bloodwork results, using an ML approach. METHODS: 1458 bloodwork measurements from 108 IBD patients were included in this analysis. Disease activity was classified by physician's global assessment score. Four ML models were trained to classify active disease or remission based on routine bloodwork metrics (complete blood count, differential, albumin, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C reactive protein). RESULTS: The optimal model, extreme gradient boosted decision trees, achieved a receiver operator characteristic area under the curve of 0.882. Feature analysis identified neutrophils, C reactive protein and albumin as consistently important contributors to the models. Additionally, no single individual biomarker was comparable to the ML model, and medications had only a minor impact on the ML model. CONCLUSION: Classification of IBD activity can be augmented using ML analysis of commonly measured bloodwork parameters to help inform treatment plans and to improve IBD patient outcomes.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".