Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Classifying Dry Eye Disease Patients from Healthy Controls Using Machine Learning and Metabolomics Data

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.14068 v2 pith:WHZMWNQB submitted 2024-06-20 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords diseasemetabolomicspatientsdatalearningmachinemodelsmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Dry eye disease is a common disorder of the ocular surface, leading patients to seek eye care. Clinical signs and symptoms are currently used to diagnose dry eye disease. Metabolomics, a method for analyzing biological systems, has been found helpful in identifying distinct metabolites in patients and in detecting metabolic profiles that may indicate dry eye disease at early stages. In this study, we explored using machine learning and metabolomics information to identify which cataract patients suffered from dry eye disease. As there is no one-size-fits-all machine learning model for metabolomics data, choosing the most suitable model can significantly affect the quality of predictions and subsequent metabolomics analyses. To address this challenge, we conducted a comparative analysis of nine machine learning models on three metabolomics data sets from cataract patients with and without dry eye disease. The models were evaluated and optimized using nested k-fold cross-validation. To assess the performance of these models, we selected a set of suitable evaluation metrics tailored to the data set's challenges. The logistic regression model overall performed the best, achieving the highest area under the curve score of 0.8378, balanced accuracy of 0.735, Matthew's correlation coefficient of 0.5147, an F1-score of 0.8513, and a specificity of 0.5667. Additionally, following the logistic regression, the XGBoost and Random Forest models also demonstrated good performance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools