CAPI-detect: machine learning in capillaroscopy reveals new variables influencing diagnosis

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY
Gema M Lledó-Ibáñez, Luis Sáez Comet, Mayka Freire Dapena, Miguel Mesa Navas, Miguel Martín Cascón, Alfredo Guillén del Castillo, Carmen Pilar Simeon, Elena Martinez Robles, José Todolí Parra, Diana Cristina Varela, Génesis Maldonado, Adela Marín, Laura Pérez Abad, Jimena Aramburu, Laura Vela, Eduardo Ramos Ibáñez, Borja del Carmelo Gracia Tello
{"title":"CAPI-detect: machine learning in capillaroscopy reveals new variables influencing diagnosis","authors":"Gema M Lledó-Ibáñez, Luis Sáez Comet, Mayka Freire Dapena, Miguel Mesa Navas, Miguel Martín Cascón, Alfredo Guillén del Castillo, Carmen Pilar Simeon, Elena Martinez Robles, José Todolí Parra, Diana Cristina Varela, Génesis Maldonado, Adela Marín, Laura Pérez Abad, Jimena Aramburu, Laura Vela, Eduardo Ramos Ibáñez, Borja del Carmelo Gracia Tello","doi":"10.1093/rheumatology/keaf073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives Nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) is the gold standard for diagnosing systemic sclerosis (SSc) and differentiating primary from secondary Raynaud's phenomenon. The CAPI-Score algorithm, designed for simplicity, classifies capillaroscopy scleroderma patterns (CSPs) using a limited number of capillary variables. This study aims to develop a more advanced machine learning (ML) model to improve CSP identification by integrating a broader range of statistical variables while minimising examiner-related bias. Methods A total of 1,780 capillaroscopies were randomly and blindly analysed by 3–4 trained observers. Consensus was defined as agreement among all but one observer (partial consensus) or unanimous agreement (full consensus). Capillaroscopies with at least partial consensus were used to train ML-based classification models using CatBoost software, incorporating 24 capillary architecture-related variables extracted via automated NVC analysis. Validation sets were employed to assess model performance. Results Of the 1,490 capillaroscopies classified with consensus, 515 achieved full consensus. The model, evaluated on partial and full consensus datasets, achieved 0.912, 0.812, and 0.746 accuracy for distinguishing SSc from non-SSc, among SSc patterns, and between normal and non-specific patterns, respectively. When evaluated on full consensus only, accuracy improved to 0.910, 0.925, and 0.933. CAPI-Detect outperformed CAPI-Score, revealing novel capillary variables critical to ML-based classification. Conclusions CAPI-Detect, an ML-based model, provides an unbiased, quantitative analysis of capillary structure, shape, size, and density, significantly improving capillaroscopic pattern identification.","PeriodicalId":21255,"journal":{"name":"Rheumatology","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keaf073","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives Nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) is the gold standard for diagnosing systemic sclerosis (SSc) and differentiating primary from secondary Raynaud's phenomenon. The CAPI-Score algorithm, designed for simplicity, classifies capillaroscopy scleroderma patterns (CSPs) using a limited number of capillary variables. This study aims to develop a more advanced machine learning (ML) model to improve CSP identification by integrating a broader range of statistical variables while minimising examiner-related bias. Methods A total of 1,780 capillaroscopies were randomly and blindly analysed by 3–4 trained observers. Consensus was defined as agreement among all but one observer (partial consensus) or unanimous agreement (full consensus). Capillaroscopies with at least partial consensus were used to train ML-based classification models using CatBoost software, incorporating 24 capillary architecture-related variables extracted via automated NVC analysis. Validation sets were employed to assess model performance. Results Of the 1,490 capillaroscopies classified with consensus, 515 achieved full consensus. The model, evaluated on partial and full consensus datasets, achieved 0.912, 0.812, and 0.746 accuracy for distinguishing SSc from non-SSc, among SSc patterns, and between normal and non-specific patterns, respectively. When evaluated on full consensus only, accuracy improved to 0.910, 0.925, and 0.933. CAPI-Detect outperformed CAPI-Score, revealing novel capillary variables critical to ML-based classification. Conclusions CAPI-Detect, an ML-based model, provides an unbiased, quantitative analysis of capillary structure, shape, size, and density, significantly improving capillaroscopic pattern identification.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rheumatology
Rheumatology 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1091
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Rheumatology strives to support research and discovery by publishing the highest quality original scientific papers with a focus on basic, clinical and translational research. The journal’s subject areas cover a wide range of paediatric and adult rheumatological conditions from an international perspective. It is an official journal of the British Society for Rheumatology, published by Oxford University Press. Rheumatology publishes original articles, reviews, editorials, guidelines, concise reports, meta-analyses, original case reports, clinical vignettes, letters and matters arising from published material. The journal takes pride in serving the global rheumatology community, with a focus on high societal impact in the form of podcasts, videos and extended social media presence, and utilizing metrics such as Altmetric. Keep up to date by following the journal on Twitter @RheumJnl.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信