Multi-classifier prediction of knee osteoarthritis progression from incomplete imbalanced longitudinal data

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.Comment: 22 pages, 12 figures, 10 table

Multi-classifier prediction of knee osteoarthritis progression from incomplete imbalanced longitudinal data

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

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

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