Evidence Hub

Feasibility of Machine Learning Analysis for the Identification of Patients with Possible Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia

Burns G, Kauffman C, Manion M, Pai RA, Milla C, O'Connor MG, Shapiro AJ, Bjornson-Pennell H

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025

32 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Significant diagnostic delays are common in primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), a rare disease that is significantly underdiagnosed. Scalable screening methods could improve early identification and health outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can machine learning (ML) be used to screen for PCD in pediatric patients?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated the feasibility of a random forest model to screen for PCD using data from the PCD Foundation Registry and a national claims database. We identified a cohort of pediatric patients with diagnostic codes indicative of conditions potentially associated with PCD, and studied diagnostic, procedural, and pharmaceutical codes associated with PCD to develop ML features. Models were trained on composite claims data from confirmed patients with PCD, patients with Q34.8 (Specific Congenital Malformation of the Respiratory System) diagnosed within six months of an Electron Microscopy procedure (Q34.8+EM), and a randomly-selected, matched control group. Model performance was tested through 5-fold cross-validation.

RESULTS: Using 82 confirmed PCD cases and 4,161 matched controls, the model demonstrated variable performance (positive predictive value 0.45-0.73, sensitivity 0.75-0.94). Synthetic data augmentation did not improve results (positive predictive value 0.45-0.67, sensitivity 0.71-1.00). Expanding the dataset to include 319 Q34.8+EM patients and 8,214 controls improved performance (positive predictive value 0.51-0.54,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 32 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free