It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
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.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Newcastle University, School of Computing Science, Newcastle, UK (GRID:grid.1006.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0462 7212)
2 University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology, Utrecht, Netherlands (GRID:grid.7692.a) (ISNI:0000000090126352)
3 Merck, Darmstadt, Germany (GRID:grid.39009.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 0672 7022)
4 Newcastle University, International Centre for Life, Biosciences Institute, Newcastle, UK (GRID:grid.1006.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0462 7212)
5 Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier, Immuno-inflammation Center of Therapeutic Innovation, Suresnes, France (GRID:grid.418301.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2163 3905)
6 GlaxoSmithKline, Novel Human Genetics Research Unit, Collegeville, USA (GRID:grid.418019.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 0393 4335)
7 University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Orthopedics, Utrecht, Netherlands (GRID:grid.7692.a) (ISNI:0000000090126352); Delft University of Technology, Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft, Netherlands (GRID:grid.5292.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4740)
8 State Research Institute Centre for Innovative Medicine, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania (GRID:grid.493509.2); University of Oulu, Research Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, Oulu, Finland (GRID:grid.10858.34) (ISNI:0000 0001 0941 4873); Queen’s Medical Centre, Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, Nottingham, UK (GRID:grid.415598.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0641 4263)