Signe Ulfbeck Schovsbo, Michael Charles Sachs, Margit Kriegbaum, Anne Ahrendt Bjerregaard, Line Tang Møllehave, Susanne Hansen, Bent Struer Lind, Tora Grauers Willadsen, Allan Linneberg, Christen Lykkegaard Andersen, Line Lund Kårhus
{"title":"Machine learning-based prediction of celiac antibody seropositivity by biochemical test parameters.","authors":"Signe Ulfbeck Schovsbo, Michael Charles Sachs, Margit Kriegbaum, Anne Ahrendt Bjerregaard, Line Tang Møllehave, Susanne Hansen, Bent Struer Lind, Tora Grauers Willadsen, Allan Linneberg, Christen Lykkegaard Andersen, Line Lund Kårhus","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-08225-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The diagnostic delay in celiac disease (CD) is currently a burden for individual and society. Biochemical tests may be used in risk-identification of CD to reduce the diagnostic delay, and we aimed to explore prediction models for CD antibody seropositivity. We developed two prediction models in a cohort study using data from primary care in greater Copenhagen (2006-2015). All patients with CD antibody tests were included. Two candidate sets of predictors were considered: (1) all blood tests measured, (2) tests deemed clinically relevant pre-study or previously studied. Both models assessed test results 5 years before CD-testing. We developed and evaluated prediction models in 10-fold cross-validation framework for each set of predictors. Four machine learning methods were combined in stacked models using SuperLearner. 54,877 patients were included, 672 CD antibody seropositive. Cross-validated estimated area under the curves were 0.68 and 0.63. Distributions of predicted probabilities overlapped substantially between patients with CD antibody seropositivity and seronegativity. Food allergen antibody and IgA were the most important predictors. Biochemical tests had low predictive power but provided methodological insights for future models. These may improve by combining biochemical tests with other clinical information but should preferably aim to stay clinically implementable.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"23732"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12229532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08225-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The diagnostic delay in celiac disease (CD) is currently a burden for individual and society. Biochemical tests may be used in risk-identification of CD to reduce the diagnostic delay, and we aimed to explore prediction models for CD antibody seropositivity. We developed two prediction models in a cohort study using data from primary care in greater Copenhagen (2006-2015). All patients with CD antibody tests were included. Two candidate sets of predictors were considered: (1) all blood tests measured, (2) tests deemed clinically relevant pre-study or previously studied. Both models assessed test results 5 years before CD-testing. We developed and evaluated prediction models in 10-fold cross-validation framework for each set of predictors. Four machine learning methods were combined in stacked models using SuperLearner. 54,877 patients were included, 672 CD antibody seropositive. Cross-validated estimated area under the curves were 0.68 and 0.63. Distributions of predicted probabilities overlapped substantially between patients with CD antibody seropositivity and seronegativity. Food allergen antibody and IgA were the most important predictors. Biochemical tests had low predictive power but provided methodological insights for future models. These may improve by combining biochemical tests with other clinical information but should preferably aim to stay clinically implementable.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.