Background:Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic rheumatic disease that encompasses various clinical presentations: inflammatory chronic back pain, peripheral manifestations and extra-articular manifestations. The current nomenclature divides axSpA in radiographic (in the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis) and non-radiographic (in the absence of radiographic sacroiliitis, with or without MRI sacroiliitis. Given that the functional burden of the disease appears to be greater in patients with radiographic forms, it seems crucial to be able to predict which patients will be more likely to develop structural damage over time. Predictive factors for radiographic progression in axSpA have been identified through use of traditional statistical models like logistic regression. However, these models present some limitations. In order to overcome these limitations and to improve the predictive performance, machine learning (ML) methods have been developed.Objectives:To compare ML models to traditional models to predict radiographic progression in patients with early axSpA.Methods:Study design: prospective French multicentric cohort study (DESIR cohort) with 5years of follow-up. Patients: all patients included in the cohort, i.e. 708 patients with inflammatory back pain for >3 months but <3 years, highly suggestive of axSpA. Data on the first 5 years of follow-up was used. Statistical analyses: radiographic progression was defined as progression either at the spine (increase of at least 1 point per 2 years of mSASSS scores) or at the sacroiliac joint (worsening of at least one grade of the mNY score between 2 visits). Traditional modelling: we first performed a bivariate analysis between our outcome (radiographic progression) and explanatory variables at baseline to select the variables to be included in our models and then built a logistic regression model (M1). Variable selection for traditional models was performed with 2 different methods: stepwise selection based on Akaike Information Criterion (stepAIC) method (M2), and the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) method (M3). We also performed sensitivity analysis on all patients with manual backward method (M4) after multiple imputation of missing data. Machine learning modelling: using the “SuperLearner” package on R, we modelled radiographic progression with stepAIC, LASSO, random forest, Discrete Bayesian Additive Regression Trees Samplers (DBARTS), Generalized Additive Models (GAM), multivariate adaptive polynomial spline regression (polymars), Recursive Partitioning And Regression Trees (RPART) and Super Learner. Finally, the accuracy of traditional and ML models was compared based on their 10-foldcross-validated AUC (cv-AUC).Results:10-fold cv-AUC for traditional models were 0.79 and 0.78 for M2 and M3, respectively. The 3 best models in the ML algorithm were the GAM, the DBARTS and the Super Learner models, with 10-fold cv-AUC of: 0.77, 0.76 and 0.74, respectively (Table 1).Table 1.Comparison of 10-fold cross-validated AUC between best traditional and machine learning models.Best modelsCross-validated AUCTraditional models M2 (step AIC method)0.79 M3 (LASSO method)0.78Machine learning approach SL Discrete Bayesian Additive Regression Trees Samplers (DBARTS)0.76 SL Generalized Additive Models (GAM)0.77 Super Learner0.74AUC: Area Under the Curve; AIC: Akaike Information Criterion; LASSO: Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator; SL: SuperLearner. N = 295.Conclusion:Traditional models predicted better radiographic progression than ML models in this early axSpA population. Further ML algorithms image-based or with other artificial intelligence methods (e.g. deep learning) might perform better than traditional models in this setting.Acknowledgments:Thanks to the French National Society of Rheumatology and the DESIR cohort.Disclosure of Interests:Romain Garofoli: None declared, Matthieu resche-rigon: None declared, Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Christian Roux: None declared, Anna Moltó Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB
Bias-Variance Trade-Off in Continuous Test Norming
