4.3 Review

Distinguishing Asthma Phenotypes Using Machine Learning Approaches

Journal

CURRENT ALLERGY AND ASTHMA REPORTS
Volume 15, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

CURRENT MEDICINE GROUP
DOI: 10.1007/s11882-015-0542-0

Keywords

Asthma; Allergy; Endotypes; Phenotypes; Machine learning; Childhood asthma; Latent class analysis

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council
  2. JP Moulton Charitable Foundation
  3. North West Lung Research Centre Charity
  4. European Union
  5. National Institute of Health Research
  6. Novartis
  7. Thermo Fisher
  8. AstraZeneca
  9. ALK
  10. GlaxoSmithKline
  11. MRC [MR/M015181/1, MR/K006665/1, MR/K002449/1, MR/K002449/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. Medical Research Council [MR/K002449/2, 1864377, MR/M015181/1, MR/K002449/1, MC_PC_15018, MC_PC_13042, MR/K006665/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Asthma is not a single disease, but an umbrella term for a number of distinct diseases, each of which are caused by a distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanism. These discrete disease entities are often labelled as 'asthma endotypes'. The discovery of different asthma subtypes has moved from subjective approaches in which putative phenotypes are assigned by experts to data-driven ones which incorporate machine learning. This review focuses on the methodological developments of one such machine learning technique-latent class analysis-and how it has contributed to distinguishing asthma and wheezing subtypes in childhood. It also gives a clinical perspective, presenting the findings of studies from the past 5 years that used this approach. The identification of true asthma endotypes may be a crucial step towards understanding their distinct pathophysiological mechanisms, which could ultimately lead to more precise prevention strategies, identification of novel therapeutic targets and the development of effective personalized therapies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available