The lived experience of functional bowel disorders: a machine learning approach
Ruffle, J. K.; Henderson, M.; Ng, C. E.; Liddle, T.; Nelson, A. P. K.; Nachev, P.; Knowles, C. H.; Yiannakou, Y.
Show abstract
Clinical management relies on a diagnostic label as the primary guide to treatment. However, individual patients lived experiences vary more widely than standard diagnostic categories reflect. This is especially true for functional bowel disorders (FBDs), a heterogeneous and challenging group of gastrointestinal disorders where no definitive diagnostic tests, clinical biomarkers, or universally effective treatments exist. Characterising the link between disease and lived experience - in the face of marked patient heterogeneity - requires deep phenotyping of the interactions between multiple characteristics plausibly achievable only with complex modelling approaches. In a large patient cohort (n=1175), we developed a machine learning and Bayesian generative graph framework to better understand the lived experience of FBDs. Iterating through 59 factors available from routine clinical care, spanning patient demography, diagnosis, symptomatology, life impact, mental health indices, healthcare access requirements, COVID-19 impact, and treatment effectiveness, machine models were used to quantify the predictive fidelity of one feature from the remainder. Bayesian stochastic block models were used to delineate the network community structure underpinning the heterogeneous lived experience of FBDs. Machine models quantified patient personal health rating (R2 0.35), anxiety and depression severity (R2 0.54), employment status (balanced accuracy 96%), frequency of healthcare attendance (R2 0.71), and patient-reported treatment effectiveness variably (R2 range 0.08-0.41). Contrary to the view of many healthcare professionals, the greatest determinants of patient-reported health and quality-of-life were life impact, mental well-being, employment status, and age, rather than diagnostic group and symptom severity. Patients responsive to one treatment were more likely to respond to another, leaving many others refractory to all. Clinical assessment of patients with FBDs should be less concerned with diagnostic classification than with the wider life impact of illness, including mental health and employment. The stratification of treatment response (and resistance) has implications for clinical practice and trial design, in need of further research.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Interpretable Multimodal Machine Learning (IMML) framework reveals pathological signatures of distal sensorimotor polyneuropathy 91%
- Sex-specific transcriptome similarity networks elucidate comorbidity relationships 91%
- Adherence and sustainability of interventions informing optimal control against COVID-19 pandemic 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Hospital-wide Natural Language Processing summarising the health data of 1 million patients 92%
- Modular Clinical Decision Support Networks (MoDN)—Updatable, Interpretable, and Portable Predictions for Evolving Clinical Environments 91%
- Explainable deep learning for disease activity prediction in chronic inflammatory joint diseases 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multi-centre derivation and validation of a colitis-associated colorectal cancer risk prediction web-tool 92%
- Barrett's esophagus is the precursor of all esophageal adenocarcinomas 91%
- Optimising Early Management of Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis in the Biologics Era: Admission Model for Intensification of Therapy in Acute Severe Colitis (ADMIT–ASC) 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identifying clusters of people with Multiple Long-Term Conditions using Large Language Models: a population-based study 94%
- Finding Long-COVID: Temporal Topic Modeling of Electronic Health Records from the N3C and RECOVER Programs 93%
- Continuous-Time and Dynamic Suicide Attempt Risk Prediction with Neural Ordinary Differential Equations 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.