OBJECTIVES: The EuResist expert system is a novel data-driven online system for computing the probability of 8-week success for any given pair of HIV-1 genotype and combination antiretroviral therapy regimen plus optional patient information. The objective of this study was to compare the EuResist system vs. human experts (EVE) for the ability to predict response to treatment. METHODS: The EuResist system was compared with 10 HIV-1 drug resistance experts for the ability to predict 8-week response to 25 treatment cases derived from the EuResist database validation data set. All current and past patient data were made available to simulate clinical practice. The experts were asked to provide a qualitative and quantitative estimate of the probability of treatment success. RESULTS: There were 15 treatment successes and 10 treatment failures. In the classification task, the number of mislabelled cases was six for EuResist and 6-13 for the human experts [mean±standard deviation (SD) 9.1±1.9]. The accuracy of EuResist was higher than the average for the experts (0.76 vs. 0.64, respectively). The quantitative estimates computed by EuResist were significantly correlated (Pearson r=0.695, P<0.0001) with the mean quantitative estimates provided by the experts. However, the agreement among experts was only moderate (for the classification task, inter-rater κ=0.355; for the quantitative estimation, mean±SD coefficient of variation=55.9±22.4%). CONCLUSIONS: With this limited data set, the EuResist engine performed comparably to or better than human experts. The system warrants further investigation as a treatment-decision support tool in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: The EuResist expert system is a novel data-driven online system for computing the probability of 8-week success for any given pair of HIV-1 genotype and combination antiretroviral therapy regimen plus optional patient information. The objective of this study was to compare the EuResist system vs. human experts (EVE) for the ability to predict response to treatment. METHODS: The EuResist system was compared with 10 HIV-1 drug resistance experts for the ability to predict 8-week response to 25 treatment cases derived from the EuResist database validation data set. All current and past patient data were made available to simulate clinical practice. The experts were asked to provide a qualitative and quantitative estimate of the probability of treatment success. RESULTS: There were 15 treatment successes and 10 treatment failures. In the classification task, the number of mislabelled cases was six for EuResist and 6-13 for the human experts [mean±standard deviation (SD) 9.1±1.9]. The accuracy of EuResist was higher than the average for the experts (0.76 vs. 0.64, respectively). The quantitative estimates computed by EuResist were significantly correlated (Pearson r=0.695, P<0.0001) with the mean quantitative estimates provided by the experts. However, the agreement among experts was only moderate (for the classification task, inter-rater κ=0.355; for the quantitative estimation, mean±SD coefficient of variation=55.9±22.4%). CONCLUSIONS: With this limited data set, the EuResist engine performed comparably to or better than human experts. The system warrants further investigation as a treatment-decision support tool in clinical practice.
Authors: Malaya K Sahoo; Martina I Lefterova; Fumiko Yamamoto; Jesse J Waggoner; Sunwen Chou; Susan P Holmes; Matthew W Anderson; Benjamin A Pinsky Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: A D Revell; D Wang; R Wood; C Morrow; H Tempelman; R L Hamers; G Alvarez-Uria; A Streinu-Cercel; L Ene; A M J Wensing; F DeWolf; M Nelson; J S Montaner; H C Lane; B A Larder Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Erin Falconer; Tal El-Hay; Dimitris Alevras; John Docherty; Chen Yanover; Alan Kalton; Yaara Goldschmidt; Michal Rosen-Zvi Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2014-11-14
Authors: Gabriele Spini; Emiliano Mancini; Thomas Attema; Mark Abspoel; Jan de Gier; Serge Fehr; Thijs Veugen; Maran van Heesch; Daniël Worm; Andrea De Luca; Ronald Cramer; Peter M A Sloot Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 4.920
Authors: Andrew D Revell; Dechao Wang; Robin Wood; Carl Morrow; Hugo Tempelman; Raph Hamers; Gerardo Alvarez-Uria; Adrian Streinu-Cercel; Luminita Ene; Annemarie Wensing; Peter Reiss; Ard I van Sighem; Mark Nelson; Sean Emery; Julio S G Montaner; H Clifford Lane; Brendan A Larder Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2013-11-24 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Alessandro Cozzi-Lepri; Mattia C F Prosperi; Jesper Kjær; David Dunn; Roger Paredes; Caroline A Sabin; Jens D Lundgren; Andrew N Phillips; Deenan Pillay Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Niko Beerenwinkel; Hesam Montazeri; Heike Schuhmacher; Patrick Knupfer; Viktor von Wyl; Hansjakob Furrer; Manuel Battegay; Bernard Hirschel; Matthias Cavassini; Pietro Vernazza; Enos Bernasconi; Sabine Yerly; Jürg Böni; Thomas Klimkait; Cristina Cellerai; Huldrych F Günthard Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 4.475