4.7 Article

Classification of Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease using Machine Learning

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02606-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hilary Marsden IfLS Scholarship
  2. University of Southampton NIHR academic clinical fellowship
  3. Crohn's in Childhood Research Association
  4. Action Medical Research [2560] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2014-26-006] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD), comprising Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC) and inflammatory bowel disease unclassified (IBDU) is a complex and multifactorial condition with increasing incidence. An accurate diagnosis of PIBD is necessary for a prompt and effective treatment. This study utilises machine learning (ML) to classify disease using endoscopic and histological data for 287 children diagnosed with PIBD. Data were used to develop, train, test and validate a ML model to classify disease subtype. Unsupervised models revealed overlap of CD/UC with broad clustering but no clear subtype delineation, whereas hierarchical clustering identified four novel subgroups characterised by differing colonic involvement. Three supervised ML models were developed utilising endoscopic data only, histological only and combined endoscopic/histological data yielding classification accuracy of 71.0%, 76.9% and 82.7% respectively. The optimal combined model was tested on a statistically independent cohort of 48 PIBD patients from the same clinic, accurately classifying 83.3% of patients. This study employs mathematical modelling of endoscopic and histological data to aid diagnostic accuracy. While unsupervised modelling categorises patients into four subgroups, supervised approaches confirm the need of both endoscopic and histological evidence for an accurate diagnosis. Overall, this paper provides a blueprint for ML use with clinical data.

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