Cited by 29Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Machine learning predicts response to TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: results on the ESPOIR and ABIRISK cohorts

Open access
Bouget, Vincent, Duquesne, Julien, Hassler, Signe, Cournède, Paul-Henry, Fautrel, Bruno, Guillemin, Francis, Pallardy, Marc, Broët, Philippe +2 more·2022·RMD Open

Abstract

Objectives: Around 30% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). We aimed to predict patient response to TNFi using machine learning on simple clinical and biological data. Methods: We used data from the RA ESPOIR cohort to train our models. The endpoints were the EULAR response and the change in Disease Activity Score (DAS28). We compared the performances of multiple models (linear regression, random forest, XGBoost and CatBoost) on the training set and cross-validated them using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) or the mean squared error. The best model was then evaluated on a replication cohort (ABIRISK). Results: We included 161 patients from ESPOIR and 118 patients from ABIRISK. The key selected features were DAS28, lymphocytes, ALT (aspartate aminotransferase), neutrophils, age, weight, and smoking status. When predicting EULAR response, CatBoost achieved the best performances of the four tested models. It reached an AUROC of 0.72 (0.68–0.73) on the train set (ESPOIR). Better results were obtained on the train set when etanercept and monoclonal antibodies were analysed separately. On the test set (ABIRISK), these models respectively achieved on AUROC of 0.70 (0.57–0.82) and 0.71 (0.55–0.86). Two decision thresholds were tested. The first prioritised a high confidence in identifying responders and yielded a confidence up to 90% for predicting response. The second prioritised a high confidence in identifying inadequate responders and yielded a confidence up to 70% for predicting non-response. The change in DAS28 was predicted with an average error of 1.1 DAS28 points. Conclusion: The machine learning models developed allowed predicting patient response to TNFi exclusively using data available in clinical routine.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002442

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [1]Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2020; 79: 685– 99. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216655 31969328 · DOI
  2. [2]Wijbrandts CA, Tak PP. Prediction of response to targeted treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Mayo Clin Proc 2017; 92: 1129– 43. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.05.009 28688467 · DOI
  3. [3]Kingsmore KM, Puglisi CE, Grammer AC, et al. An introduction to machine learning and analysis of its use in rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2021; 17: 710– 30. 10.1038/s41584-021-00708-w 34728818 · DOI
  4. [4]Yu K-H, Beam AL, Kohane IS. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nat Biomed Eng 2018; 2: 719– 31. 10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z 31015651 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]Hügle M, Omoumi P, van Laar JM, et al. Applied machine learning and artificial intelligence in rheumatology. Rheumatol Adv Pract 2020; 4: rkaa005. 10.1093/rap/rkaa005 32296743 PMC7151725 · DOI
  6. [6]Nair N, Wilson AG. Can machine learning predict responses to TNF inhibitors? Nat Rev Rheumatol 2019; 15: 702– 4. 10.1038/s41584-019-0320-9 31602041 · DOI
  7. [7]Pandit A, Radstake TRDJ. Machine learning in rheumatology approaches the clinic. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2020; 16: 69– 70. 10.1038/s41584-019-0361-0 31908355 · DOI
  8. [8]Sutcliffe M, Radley G, Barton A. Personalized medicine in rheumatic diseases: how close are we to being able to use genetic biomarkers to predict response to TNF inhibitors? Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2020; 16: 389– 96. 10.1080/1744666X.2020.1740594 32176556 · DOI
  9. [10]Tao W, Concepcion AN, Vianen M, et al. Multiomics and machine learning accurately predict clinical response to adalimumab and etanercept therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021; 73: 212– 22. 10.1002/art.41516 32909363 PMC7898388 · DOI
  10. [11]Koo BS, Eun S, Shin K. Explainable artificial intelligence for predicting remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologics. Research square 2021. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-273642/v1 PMC8259419 34229736 · DOI
  11. [12]Lee S, Kang S, Eun Y, et al. Machine learning-based prediction model for responses of bDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Res Ther 2021; 23: 254. 10.1186/s13075-021-02635-3 34627335 PMC8501710 · DOI
  12. [13]Combe B, Benessiano J, Berenbaum F, et al. The ESPOIR cohort: a ten-year follow-up of early arthritis in France. Joint Bone Spine 2007; 74: 440– 5. 10.1016/j.jbspin.2007.06.001 17905631 · DOI
  13. [15]Fransen J, van Riel PLCM, van RP. The disease activity score and the EULAR response criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005; 23: S93– 9. 16273792
  14. [17]Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. San Francisco California USA: ACM, 2016: 785– 94. https://dl.acm.org/doi/
  15. [18]Dorogush AV, Ershov V, Gulin A. CatBoost: gradient boosting with categorical features support. ArXiv181011363 Cs Stat, 2018. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11363 [Accessed 15 Oct 2021]. · arXiv
  16. [19]Lundberg SM, Lee S-I. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In: Advances in neural information processing Systems.Vol 30. Curran Associates, Inc, 2017. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/8a20a8621978632d76c43dfd28b67767-Abstract.html
  17. [20]Sieberts SK, Zhu F, García-García J, et al. Crowdsourced assessment of common genetic contribution to predicting anti-TNF treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 12460. 10.1038/ncomms12460 27549343 PMC4996969 · DOI
  18. [21]Moncada-Torres A, van Maaren MC, Hendriks MP, et al. Explainable machine learning can outperform COX regression predictions and provide insights in breast cancer survival. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 6968. 10.1038/s41598-021-86327-7 33772109 PMC7998037 · DOI
  19. [22]Hügle M, Kalweit G, Hügle T. A Dynamic Deep Neural Network for Multimodal Clinical Data Analysis. In: Shaban-Nejad A, Michalowski M, Buckeridge DL, eds. Explainable AI in healthcare and medicine. Studies in computational intelligence. 914. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021: 79– 92. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-53352-6_8 · DOI
  20. [23]Norgeot B, Glicksberg BS, Trupin L, et al. Assessment of a deep learning model based on electronic health record data to forecast clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2: e190606. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0606 30874779 PMC6484652 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bouget, V., Duquesne, J., Hassler, S., Cournède, P.-H., Fautrel, B., Guillemin, F., Pallardy, M., Broët, P., Mariette, X., & Bitoun, S.
Affiliations
  • Scienta Lab, Paris, France
  • Sorbonne Université, INSERM UMR 959, Immunology-Immunopathology-Immunotherapy (i3), Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France
  • Supélec (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Université de Lorraine, APEMAC, Vandoeuvre les Nancy, France
  • Rheumatology departement, Université Paris Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bicêtre, INSERM UMR 1184, FHU CARE, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
Corresponding author
Bitoun, Samuel
Venue
RMD Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-08
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
e002442
ISSN
2056-5933 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4292840680
Cited by
29
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
4.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • RMD Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • Biogen
  • Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
  • Merck Sharp and Dohme
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Autoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
rheumatoid arthritis, TNF-alpha inhibitors, treatment response prediction, machine learning, CatBoost, EULAR response, DAS28, etanercept, anti-TNF monoclonal antibody, inadequate response, ESPOIR cohort
MeSH terms
Etanercept, Machine Learning, Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors, Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Humans, Antirheumatic Agents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review