Development and validation of a machine learning-supported strategy of patient selection for osteoarthritis clinical trials: the IMI-APPROACH study

View/ Open
Use this link to cite
http://hdl.handle.net/2183/33427
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España
Collections
- INIBIC- REUMA - Artigos [174]
Metadata
Show full item recordTitle
Development and validation of a machine learning-supported strategy of patient selection for osteoarthritis clinical trials: the IMI-APPROACH studyAuthor(s)
Date
2023-12Citation
Widera P, Welsing PMJ, Danso SO, Peelen S, Kloppenburg M, Loef M, Marijnissen AC, van Helvoort EM, Blanco FJ, Magalhães J, Berenbaum F, Haugen IK, Bay-Jensen AC, Mobasheri A, Ladel C, Loughlin J, Lafeber FPJG, Lalande A, Larkin J, Weinans H, Bacardit J. Development and validation of a machine learning-supported strategy of patient selection for osteoarthritis clinical trials: the IMI-APPROACH study. Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 2023 Aug 18;5(4):100406.
Abstract
[Abstract] Objectives. To efficiently assess the disease-modifying potential of new osteoarthritis treatments, clinical trials need progression-enriched patient populations. To assess whether the application of machine learning results in patient selection enrichment, we developed a machine learning recruitment strategy targeting progressive patients and validated it in the IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis prospective study.
Design. We designed a two-stage recruitment process supported by machine learning models trained to rank candidates by the likelihood of progression. First stage models used data from pre-existing cohorts to select patients for a screening visit. The second stage model used screening data to inform the final inclusion. The effectiveness of this process was evaluated using the actual 24-month progression.
Results. From 3500 candidate patients, 433 with knee osteoarthritis were screened, 297 were enrolled, and 247 completed the 2-year follow-up visit. We observed progression related to pain (P, 30%), structure (S, 13%), and combined pain and structure (P + S, 5%), and a proportion of non-progressors (N, 52%) ∼15% lower vs an unenriched population. Our model predicted these outcomes with AUC of 0.86 [95% CI, 0.81–0.90] for pain-related progression and AUC of 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52–0.70] for structure-related progression. Progressors were ranked higher than non-progressors for P + S (median rank 65 vs 143, AUC = 0.75), P (median rank 77 vs 143, AUC = 0.71), and S patients (median rank 107 vs 143, AUC = 0.57).
Conclusions. The machine learning-supported recruitment resulted in enriched selection of progressive patients. Further research is needed to improve structural progression prediction and assess this strategy in an interventional trial.
Keywords
Osteoarthritis
Disease progression prediction
Machine learning
Patient selection for clinical trials
Inclusion
Disease progression prediction
Machine learning
Patient selection for clinical trials
Inclusion
Editor version
Rights
Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España
ISSN
2665-9131