Search

Objective: To develop machine learning models using patient and migraine features that can predict treatment responses to commonly used migraine preventive medications. Background: Currently, there is no accurate way to predict response to migraine preventive medications, and the standard trial‐and‐error approach is inefficient. Methods: In this cohort study, we analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic Headache database prospectively collected from 2001 to December 2023. Adult patients with migraine completed questionnaires during their initial headache consultation to record detailed clinical features and then at each follow‐up to track preventive medication changes and monthly headache days. We included patients treated with at least one of the following migraine preventive medications: topiramate, beta‐blockers (propranolol, metoprolol, atenolol, nadolol, timolol), tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline), verapamil, gabapentin, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab). We pre‐trained a deep neural network, "TabNet," using 145 variables, then employed TabNet‐embedded data to construct prediction models for each medication to predict binary outcomes (responder vs. non‐responder). A treatment responder was defined as having at least a 30% reduction in monthly headache days from baseline. All model performances were evaluated, and metrics were reported in the held‐out test set (train 85%, test 15%). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were conducted to determine variable importance. Results: Our final analysis included 4260 patients. The responder rate for each medication ranged from 28.7% to 34.9%, and the mean time to treatment outcome for each medication ranged from 151.3 to 209.5 days. The CGRP mAb prediction model achieved a high area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.825 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.726, 0.920) and an accuracy of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70, 0.88). The AUCs of prediction models for beta‐blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, topiramate, verapamil, gabapentin, and onabotulinumtoxinA were: 0.664 (95% CI 0.579, 0.745), 0.611 (95% CI 0.562, 0.682), 0.605 (95% CI 0.520, 0.688), 0.673 (95% CI 0.569, 0.724), 0.628 (0.533, 0.661), and 0.581 (95% CI 0.550, 0.632), respectively. Baseline monthly headache days, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of migraine attacks, responses to previous medication trials, cranial autonomic symptoms, family history of headache, and migraine attack triggers were among the most important variables across all models. A variable could have different contributions; for example, lower BMI predicts responsiveness to CGRP mAbs and beta‐blockers, while higher BMI predicts responsiveness to onabotulinumtoxinA, topiramate, and gabapentin. Conclusion: We developed an accurate prediction model for CGRP mAbs treatment response, leveraging detailed migraine features gathered from a headache questionnaire before starting treatment. Employing the same methods, the model performances for other medications were less impressive, though similar to the machine learning models reported in the literature for other diseases. This may be due to CGRP mAbs being migraine‐specific. Incorporating medical comorbidities, genomic, and imaging factors might enhance the model performance. We demonstrated that migraine characteristics are important in predicting treatment responses and identified the most crucial predictors for each of the seven types of preventive medications. Our results suggest that precision migraine treatment is feasible. Plain Language Summary: Currently, there is no way to predict whether preventive medications, which are medications that may reduce the frequency and severity of headaches, will be helpful to all patients. We used novel artificial intelligence techniques and developed effective tools that can predict how a patient responds to seven different types of migraine preventive medications before the medication is started. We also found that the ways in which patients describe their headache and the types of symptoms they have is important to predict whether the medication will work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Differential kidney function assessment is an important part of preoperative evaluation of various urological interventions. It is obtained through dedicated nuclear medical imaging and is not yet implemented through conventional Imaging. Objective: We assess if differential kidney function can be obtained through evaluation of contrast-enhanced computed tomography(CT) using a combination of deep learning and (2D and 3D) radiomic features. Methods: All patients who underwent kidney nuclear scanning at Mayo Clinic sites between 2018–2022 were collected. CT scans of the kidneys were obtained within a 3-month interval before or after the nuclear scans were extracted. Patients who underwent a urological or radiological intervention within this time frame were excluded. A segmentation model was used to segment both kidneys. 2D and 3D radiomics features were extracted and compared between the two kidneys to compute delta radiomics and assess its ability to predict differential kidney function. Performance was reported using receiver operating characteristics, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: Studies from Arizona & Rochester formed our internal dataset (n = 1,159). Studies from Florida were separately processed as an external test set to validate generalizability. We obtained 323 studies from our internal sites and 39 studies from external sites. The best results were obtained by a random forest model trained on 3D delta radiomics features. This model achieved an area under curve (AUC) of 0.85 and 0.81 on internal and external test sets, while specificity and sensitivity were 0.84,0.68 on the internal set, 0.70, and 0.65 on the external set. Conclusion: This proposed automated pipeline can derive important differential kidney function information from contrast-enhanced CT and reduce the need for dedicated nuclear scans for early-stage differential kidney functional assessment. Clinical Impact: We establish a machine learning methodology for assessing differential kidney function from routine CT without the need for expensive and radioactive nuclear medicine scans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that can accurately extract headache frequency from free‐text clinical notes. Background: Headache frequency, defined as the number of days with any headache in a month (or 4 weeks), remains a key parameter in the evaluation of treatment response to migraine preventive medications. However, due to the variations and inconsistencies in documentation by clinicians, significant challenges exist to accurately extract headache frequency from the electronic health record (EHR) by traditional NLP algorithms. Methods: This was a retrospective cross‐sectional study with patients identified from two tertiary headache referral centers, Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Rochester. All neurology consultation notes written by 15 specialized clinicians (11 headache specialists and 4 nurse practitioners) between 2012 and 2022 were extracted and 1915 notes were used for model fine‐tuning (90%) and testing (10%). We employed four different NLP frameworks: (1) ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) regression model, (2) Generative Pre‐Trained Transformer‐2 (GPT‐2) Question Answering (QA) model zero‐shot, (3) GPT‐2 QA model few‐shot training fine‐tuned on clinical notes, and (4) GPT‐2 generative model few‐shot training fine‐tuned on clinical notes to generate the answer by considering the context of included text. Results: The mean (standard deviation) headache frequency of our training and testing datasets were 13.4 (10.9) and 14.4 (11.2), respectively. The GPT‐2 generative model was the best‐performing model with an accuracy of 0.92 (0.91, 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and R2 score of 0.89 (0.87, 0.90, 95% CI), and all GPT‐2–based models outperformed the ClinicalBERT model in terms of exact matching accuracy. Although the ClinicalBERT regression model had the lowest accuracy of 0.27 (0.26, 0.28), it demonstrated a high R2 score of 0.88 (0.85, 0.89), suggesting the ClinicalBERT model can reasonably predict the headache frequency within a range of ≤ ± 3 days, and the R2 score was higher than the GPT‐2 QA zero‐shot model or GPT‐2 QA model few‐shot training fine‐tuned model. Conclusion: We developed a robust information extraction model based on a state‐of‐the‐art large language model, a GPT‐2 generative model that can extract headache frequency from EHR free‐text clinical notes with high accuracy and R2 score. It overcame several challenges related to different ways clinicians document headache frequency that were not easily achieved by traditional NLP models. We also showed that GPT‐2–based frameworks outperformed ClinicalBERT in terms of accuracy in extracting headache frequency from clinical notes. To facilitate research in the field, we released the GPT‐2 generative model and inference code with open‐source license of community use in GitHub. Additional fine‐tuning of the algorithm might be required when applied to different health‐care systems for various clinical use cases. Plain Language Summary: We developed a novel artificial intelligence program that can automatically and accurately extract headache frequency from doctors' notes. Figuring out how often someone gets headaches is important as it helps doctors see how bad the problem is and if treatments are working. Our method, using a powerful program called Generative Pre‐Trained Transformer‐2, worked better than older ways and could make big data migraine research easier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]