Back

Prospective validation of an uncertainty-aware machine learning model for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis classification

Parakkal Sreenivasan, A.; Noui, Y.; Erngren, I.; Spjuth, O.; Burman, J.; Kultima, K.

2026-10-11 neurology
10.64898/2026.10.07.26364939 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) often progresses to secondary-progressive MS (SPMS), but diagnosis is typically retrospective, delaying potential interventions. Existing rule-based and machine learning approaches often lack prospective validation and provide no uncertainty estimates, limiting clinical adoption. Objective: To prospectively evaluate a conformal prediction (CP)-enabled random forest model for reproducing clinician-recorded disease course labels in the Swedish Multiple Sclerosis Registry (SMSReg) and compare its classifications with the Lorscheider criteria. Methods: The CP model was trained and calibrated on SMSReg-2022 (10,787 individuals, 85,461 hospital visits) and then validated on SMSReg-2025 (15,719 individuals, 45,077 hospital visits; not included in the SMSReg-2022 training/calibration/testing datasets). Performance was assessed at the hospital visit and individual levels and compared with the Lorscheider criteria. Results: The model maintained good calibration on the prospective dataset. At the per-hospital visit-level, the model accuracies were 92% (RRMS) and 95% (SPMS). At the individual level, sensitivity was 98%, specificity 89%, and F1-score 0.75. With clinician-recorded labels as reference, the model showed higher sensitivity than the Lorscheider criteria (98% vs. 71%), more transition assignments (90% vs. 57%), and higher F1-score (0.76 vs. 0.69). Conclusion: The CP-enabled model prospectively reproduced clinician-recorded disease course labels with calibrated uncertainty, supporting harmonization and decision support.

Matching journals

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

50% of probability mass above

"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.