Demonstrates high reproducibility of machine learning-based steroid scores for primary aldosteronism diagnosis, indicating robust clinical laboratory reliability.
OBJECTIVES: Use of machine learning (ML) in diagnostics offers promise to optimise interpretation of laboratory data and guide clinical decision-making. For this, ML-based outputs should provide robustly reproducible results at least as good as the underlying laboratory data. The objective of this study was to assess robustness of ML-based steroid-probability-scores for diagnosis of primary aldosteronism (PA). METHODS: Reproducibility of ML-based steroid-probability-scores was assessed from coefficients of variation (CVs) for pools of quality control plasma from selected groups of patients with and without PA. Intra-patient measurement variability was assessed from CVs of three consecutive plasma specimens obtained on different days from 77 patients. Inter-laboratory reproducibility was assessed from 47 duplicate plasma specimens analysed in two different laboratories. RESULTS: Support vector machine-derived steroid-probability-scores for diagnosis of PA for seven sets of quality control plasma pools yielded an averaged CV (2.5 % CI 0.4-4.4 %) that was lower (p=0.0078) than the averaged CV for seven steroids employed in that model (12.0 % CI 7.4-16.6). Using three sets of plasma samples from 77 patients, CVs for intra-patient measurement variability of steroid-probability-scores were 7 % (CI 5-9 %) and lower (p<0.0001) than CVs for measurements of aldosterone (38 % CI 32-42 %), 18-oxocortisol (36 % CI 29-43 %), 18-hydroxycortisol (25 % CI 21-28 %) and the aldosterone:renin ratio (46 % CI 38-55 %). ML-derived probability scores for 47 duplicate plasma samples analysed at two separate laboratories displayed excellent agreement and negligible bias. CONCLUSIONS: ML-based steroid-probability-scores for diagnosis of PA display remarkably high robustness according to reproducibility of measurements within and between laboratories as well as within patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eisenhofer et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: