Abstract

Conventional inclusion criteria used in osteoarthritis clinical trials are not very effective in selecting patients who would benefit from a therapy being tested. Typically majority of selected patients show no or limited disease progression during a trial period. As a consequence, the effect of the tested treatment cannot be observed, and the efforts and resources invested in running the trial are not rewarded. This could be avoided, if selection criteria were more predictive of the future disease progression. In this article, we formulated the patient selection problem as a multi-class classification task, with classes based on clinically relevant measures of progression (over a time scale typical for clinical trials). Using data from two long-term knee osteoarthritis studies OAI and CHECK, we tested multiple algorithms and learning process configurations (including multi-classifier approaches, cost-sensitive learning, and feature selection), to identify the best performing machine learning models. We examined the behaviour of the best models, with respect to prediction errors and the impact of used features, to confirm their clinical relevance. We found that the model-based selection outperforms the conventional inclusion criteria, reducing by 20–25% the number of patients who show no progression. This result might lead to more efficient clinical trials.

Highlights

  • Conventional inclusion criteria used in osteoarthritis clinical trials are not very effective in selecting patients who would benefit from a therapy being tested

  • The traditional approach to patient selection relies on expert knowledge and typically follows a set of consensus criteria defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), mixed with a presence of limited joint damage and significant pain complaints

  • The aim of this work has been to test if the machine learning models can be more predictive of the future knee OA progression than the conventional clinical selection criteria

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Conventional inclusion criteria used in osteoarthritis clinical trials are not very effective in selecting patients who would benefit from a therapy being tested. The effect of the tested treatment cannot be observed, and the efforts and resources invested in running the trial are not rewarded This could be avoided, if selection criteria were more predictive of the future disease progression. The traditional approach to patient selection relies on expert knowledge and typically follows a set of consensus criteria defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), mixed with a presence of limited joint damage (so further progression is possible) and significant pain complaints. When these criteria are satisfied, the patient’s disease is expected to progress over time. This is a problem for clinical trials and short-term studies, like APPROACH, in which the observation time is typically limited to about 2 years

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call