Back

Unsupervised subgrouping of chronic low back pain patients treated in a specialty clinic

Torres Espin, A.; Keller, A.; Ewing, S.; Bishara, A.; Takegami, N.; Ferguson, A. R.; Scheffler, A.; Hue, T.; Lotzs, J.; Peterson, T.; Zheng, P.; O'Neill, C.

2023-11-05 pain medicine
10.1101/2023.11.04.23298104 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundChronic low back pain (cLBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Current treatments have minor or moderate effects, partly because of the idiopathic nature of most cLBP cases, the complexity of its presentation, and heterogeneity in the population. Explaining this complexity and heterogeneity by identifying subgroups of patients is critical for personalized health. Clinical decisions tailoring treatment to patients subgroup characteristics and specific treatment responses can improve health outcomes. Current patient stratification tools divide cases into subgroups based on a small subset of characteristics, which may not capture many factors determining patient phenotypes. Methods and FindingsIn this study, we use an unsupervised machine learning framework to identify patient subgroups within a specialized back pain clinic and evaluate their outcomes. Our analysis identified 25 latent factors determining patient phenotypes and found three distinctive clusters of patients. The research suggests that there is heterogeneity in the population of patients treated in a specialty setting and that several factors determine patient phenotypes. Cluster 1 consists of those individuals with characteristics found to be protective of chronic pain: younger age, low pain medication prescription, high function, good insurance access, and low overlapping pain conditions. Individuals in Cluster 3 associate with older age and present with a higher incidence of chronic overlapping pain conditions, comorbidities, and pain medication use. Cluster 2 is an intermediate group. ConclusionsWe quantify cLBP population heterogeneity and demonstrate how ML analytical workflow can be used to explain, in part, this heterogeneity in relation to outcomes. Notably, considering a data-driven approach from multi-domain data produces different subgroups than the STarT back screening tool, and the addition of other functional metrics at baseline such as global physical and mental function, and pain intensity, increases the variance explained in outcomes. Our study provides novel insights into the complex nature of cLBP and the potential for data-driven methods to identify clinically relevant subtypes.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
18.9%
2
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
3
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.3%
4
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
The Journal of Pain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
7
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.7%
10
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.5%
11
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Pain
70 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
13
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.7%
14
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
16
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.4%
17
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
18
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
19
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
22
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%