Cited by 53Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Prediction of chronic damage in systemic lupus erythematosus by using machine-learning models

Open access
Ceccarelli, Fulvia, Sciandrone, Marco, Perricone, Carlo, Galvan, Giulio, Morelli, Francesco, Vicente, Luis Nunes, Leccese, Ilaria, Massaro, Laura +5 more·2017·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The increased survival in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) patients implies the development of chronic damage, occurring in up to 50% of cases. Its prevention is a major goal in the SLE management. We aimed at predicting chronic damage in a large monocentric SLE cohort by using neural networks. METHODS: We enrolled 413 SLE patients (M/F 30/383; mean age ± SD 46.3±11.9 years; mean disease duration ± SD 174.6 ± 112.1 months). Chronic damage was assessed by the SLICC/ACR Damage Index (SDI). We applied Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) as a machine-learning model to predict the risk of chronic damage. The clinical data sequences registered for each patient during the follow-up were used for building and testing the RNNs. RESULTS: At the first visit in the Lupus Clinic, 35.8% of patients had an SDI≥1. For the RNN model, two groups of patients were analyzed: patients with SDI = 0 at the baseline, developing damage during the follow-up (N = 38), and patients without damage (SDI = 0). We created a mathematical model with an AUC value of 0.77, able to predict damage development. A threshold value of 0.35 (sensitivity 0.74, specificity 0.76) seemed able to identify patients at risk to develop damage. CONCLUSION: We applied RNNs to identify a prediction model for SLE chronic damage. The use of the longitudinal data from the Sapienza Lupus Cohort, including laboratory and clinical items, resulted able to construct a mathematical model, potentially identifying patients at risk to develop damage.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0174200

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Many AI applications in lupus primarily focus on SLE diagnosis, severity classification, or risk prediction of complications such as lupus nephritis.

    “Many AI applications in lupus primarily focus on SLE diagnosis, severity classification, or risk prediction of complications such as lupus nephritis (Ceccarelli et al, 2017; Li et al, 2022; Ma et al, 2022; Yaung et al, 2023).”

    From Artificial intelligence–enabled precision medicine for inflammatory skin diseases (2026) · cites this paper as Ceccarelli et al, 2017

    The Introduction and Discussion (page numbers not provided) describe prior machine-learning applications predicting lupus nephritis and classifying its histology, supporting the complication-prediction part of the claim. They do not establish that many lupus AI applications primarily focus on SLE diagnosis or severity classification; this paper's own model predicts chronic damage. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ceccarelli, F., Sciandrone, M., Perricone, C., Galvan, G., Morelli, F., Vicente, L. N., Leccese, I., Massaro, L., Cipriano, E., Spinelli, F. R., Alessandri, C., Valesini, G., & Conti, F.
Affiliations
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • University of Florence (IT)
  • University of Coimbra (PT)
Corresponding author
Alessandri, Cristiano
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2017-03-22
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
e0174200
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2598710582
Cited by
53
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
systemic lupus erythematosus, damage prediction, recurrent neural networks, SLICC/ACR damage index, longitudinal clinical data, risk stratification
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Disease Progression

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