4.7 Article

Laboratory Data and IBDQ-Effective Predictors for the Non-Invasive Machine-Learning-Based Prediction of Endoscopic Activity in Ulcerative Colitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12113609

关键词

ulcerative colitis; disease activity; non-invasive biomarkers; quality of life; machine learning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to develop a cost-effective and non-invasive machine learning (ML) method using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score and low-cost biological predictors to estimate endoscopic disease activity (EDA) in ulcerative colitis (UC). The inclusion of IBDQ in the predictors improved accuracy and the AUC for both the random forest (RF) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) classifiers. The RF technique outperformed the MLP method on unseen data, indicating its superior performance. This study is the first to propose the use of IBDQ as a predictor in an ML model to estimate UC EDA.
A suitable, non-invasive biomarker for assessing endoscopic disease activity (EDA) in ulcerative colitis (UC) has yet to be identified. Our study aimed to develop a cost-effective and non-invasive machine learning (ML) method that utilizes the cost-free Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score and low-cost biological predictors to estimate EDA. Four random forest (RF) and four multilayer perceptron (MLP) classifiers were proposed. The results show that the inclusion of IBDQ in the list of predictors that were fed to the models improved accuracy and the AUC for both the RF and the MLP algorithms. Moreover, the RF technique performed noticeably better than the MLP method on unseen data (the independent patient cohort). This is the first study to propose the use of IBDQ as a predictor in an ML model to estimate UC EDA. The deployment of this ML model can furnish doctors and patients with valuable insights into EDA, a highly beneficial resource for individuals with UC who need long-term treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据