Scholarlink

Background <p>Chronic fatigue severely compromises the quality of life in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Traditional diagnostic methods are often time-consuming, relying on clinical expertise and detailed questionnaires. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model capable of predicting chronic fatigue in GPA patients based on clinical data, with a particular focus on improving diagnostic capacity in regions with limited access to specialists.</p> Methods <p>This cross-sectional study collected data on fatigue (measured by the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, MFIS), functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ), disease activity (Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, BVAS), comorbidities, medication use, physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short Form, IPAQ-SF), and demographic characteristics. Four machine learning algorithms—logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting—were assessed using a 70/30 train-test split. Model performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, F1 score, recall, and precision. Statistical comparisons were performed using Welch’s t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables, while the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was applied to categorical variables, with significance set at <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05. All analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.1 for Windows.</p> Results <p>Forty-five patients were assessed: 62.2% were female, with a median BMI of 27.72&#xa0;kg/m² (23.2–30.1), a median age of 55.5 years, and a median disease duration of 12.0 years (6.0–17.0). Fatigue was reported by 20 patients (MFIS score ≥ 38), and seven patients (15.5%) had active disease according to the BVAS, which was similar between the fatigued and no fatigued groups (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). The fatigued group had more acute-phase reactants and prednisone use (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). The tree-based models achieved an AUC of approximately 0.80, outperforming the other models.</p> Conclusion <p>Tree-based models demonstrated superior predictive performance in identifying chronic fatigue. The Random Forest model, in particular, highlighted higher disability in activities of daily living (HAQ), older age, and longer disease duration as key predictors. Although the models performed well, additional data and incorporation of clinically relevant variables may further enhance predictive accuracy. Patients with GPA who experienced fatigue showed higher glucocorticoid use and elevated acute-phase reactants, despite similar levels of disease activity, suggesting mechanisms beyond inflammation. Machine learning shows strong potential as a clinical tool for fatigue identification, especially in settings with limited access to specialist care.</p> Trial registration <p>Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1271-6003; Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC): RBR-9n4z2hh. Registration date: January 18, 2022, and Plataforma Brasil (CAAE # 41762820.1.0000.0068).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Development of machine learning models for chronic fatigue prediction in granulomatosis with polyangiitis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月9日

查看全文
  • Alexandre Moura dos Santos,
  • Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo

摘要

Background

Chronic fatigue severely compromises the quality of life in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Traditional diagnostic methods are often time-consuming, relying on clinical expertise and detailed questionnaires. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model capable of predicting chronic fatigue in GPA patients based on clinical data, with a particular focus on improving diagnostic capacity in regions with limited access to specialists.

Methods

This cross-sectional study collected data on fatigue (measured by the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, MFIS), functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ), disease activity (Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, BVAS), comorbidities, medication use, physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short Form, IPAQ-SF), and demographic characteristics. Four machine learning algorithms—logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting—were assessed using a 70/30 train-test split. Model performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, F1 score, recall, and precision. Statistical comparisons were performed using Welch’s t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables, while the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was applied to categorical variables, with significance set at P < 0.05. All analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.1 for Windows.

Results

Forty-five patients were assessed: 62.2% were female, with a median BMI of 27.72 kg/m² (23.2–30.1), a median age of 55.5 years, and a median disease duration of 12.0 years (6.0–17.0). Fatigue was reported by 20 patients (MFIS score ≥ 38), and seven patients (15.5%) had active disease according to the BVAS, which was similar between the fatigued and no fatigued groups (P > 0.05). The fatigued group had more acute-phase reactants and prednisone use (P < 0.05). The tree-based models achieved an AUC of approximately 0.80, outperforming the other models.

Conclusion

Tree-based models demonstrated superior predictive performance in identifying chronic fatigue. The Random Forest model, in particular, highlighted higher disability in activities of daily living (HAQ), older age, and longer disease duration as key predictors. Although the models performed well, additional data and incorporation of clinically relevant variables may further enhance predictive accuracy. Patients with GPA who experienced fatigue showed higher glucocorticoid use and elevated acute-phase reactants, despite similar levels of disease activity, suggesting mechanisms beyond inflammation. Machine learning shows strong potential as a clinical tool for fatigue identification, especially in settings with limited access to specialist care.

Trial registration

Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1271-6003; Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC): RBR-9n4z2hh. Registration date: January 18, 2022, and Plataforma Brasil (CAAE # 41762820.1.0000.0068).