| Literature DB >> 30745169 |
Xuejiao Hu1, Shun Liao2, Hao Bai3, Lijuan Wu3, Minjin Wang3, Qian Wu3, Juan Zhou3, Lin Jiao3, Xuerong Chen4, Yanhong Zhou3, Xiaojun Lu3, Binwu Ying5, Zhaolei Zhang6, Weimin Li7.
Abstract
Background Tuberculosis (TB) is difficult to diagnose under complex clinical conditions as electronic health records (EHRs) are often inadequate in making an affirmative diagnosis. As exosomal miRNAs emerged as promising biomarkers, we investigated the potential of using exosomal miRNAs and EHRs in TB diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: Electronic health record; Exosomal miRNA; Machine learning; Tuberculosis differential diagnosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30745169 PMCID: PMC6413343 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.01.023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Overview of the strategy for investigating exosomal miRNAs and diagnostic models for TBM and PTB A total of 407 individuals were recruited, and 370 individuals were finally included. PTB: pulmonary tuberculosis; TBM: tuberculosis meningitis; HS: healthy state; DE exosomal miRNAs: differentially expressed exosomal miRNAs; PTB-DC: non-PTB disease control; TBM-DC: non-TBM disease control; Cq: cycle of quantification; EHR: electronic health record; PCA: principal component analysis; SVM: support vector machine.
Demographic and clinical features of participants in the prospective selection and testing cohorts.
| Clinical features | Suspected PTB patients | Suspected TBM patients | HS controls ( | p1 | p2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTB ( | PTB-DCs ( | p | TBM ( | TBM-DCs ( | p | ||||
| Gender, male | 57 (63.3%) | 36 (63.3%) | 0.983 | 23 (48.9%) | 16 (59.3%) | 0.392 | 72 (55.4%) | ||
| Age (years) | 42.3 ± 18.6 | 62.8 ± 16.8 | <0.0001 | 34.4 ± 16.7 | 33.6 ± 16.3 | 0.843 | 36.9 ± 10.5 | <0.0001 | 0.191 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 20.1 ± 3.2 | 22.4 ± 3.3 | <0.0001 | 21.3 ± 3.1 | 21.8 ± 2.9 | 0.463 | 20.5 ± 3.8 | 0.125 | 0.013 |
| Smoking | 32 (35.6%) | 22 (38.6%) | 0.709 | 14 (29.8%) | 8 (29.6%) | 0.989 | 32 (24.6%) | 0.030 | 0.426 |
| Radiologic pathology detected | 64 (71.1%) | 37 (64.9%) | 0.430 | 38/43 (88.4%) | 10/20 (50.0%) | 0.003 | – | – | – |
| Bacteriologic test | 59 (65.56%) | – | – | 8 (17.02%) | – | – | – | – | – |
| | 32/71 (45.1%) | – | – | 7 (14.9%) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Smear | 30 (33.3%) | – | – | 4 (8.5%) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Culture | 23/45 (51.1%) | – | – | 7 (14.9%) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Other related laboratory tests | – | – | |||||||
| Positive TB-IGRA | 41/59 (69.5%) | 20/30 (66.7%) | 0.786 | 25/47 (53.2%) | 8/12 (66.7%) | 0.401 | – | – | – |
| C-reactive protein (mg/L) | 15.3 (4.1–36.9) | 43.7 (18.1–103.8) | 0.072 | 5.7 (2.7–16.8) | 8.3 (1.7–18.3) | 0.851 | – | – | – |
| ESR (mm/h) | 44.0 (23.0–65.0) | 43.5 (19.0–64.8) | 0.598 | 18.0 (8.0–45.0) | 35.0 (18.0–48.0) | 0.741 | – | – | – |
| Hematocrit | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.008 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.110 | 0.4 ± 0.03 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Platelets (×109/L) | 244.0 (182.0–354.0) | 259.5 (147.8–306.8) | 0.008 | 190.0 (141.0–275.0) | 177.0 (154.0–283.0) | 0.736 | 193.0 (164.8–220.8) | <0.0001 | 0.601 |
| Leucocytes (×109/L) | 5.6 (4.4–7.4) | 7.1 (4.5–10.4) | 0.069 | 5.9 (3.7–8.7) | 6.5 (5.4–11.0) | 0.343 | 5.4 (4.6–6.4) | 0.027 | <0.0001 |
The selection and testing cohorts are combined together. PTB: pulmonary tuberculosis; TBM: tuberculous meningitis; PTB-DCs: non-PTB disease controls; TBM-DCs: non-TBM disease controls; HS: healthy states; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Among 47 TBM patients, 22 had accompanied with PTB. Bacteriologic test included MTB-DNA, smear, and culture. TB-IGRA: tuberculosis interferon gamma release assay. p1: p-value for the comparison of suspected PTB patients versus HS controls. p2: p-value for the comparison of suspected TBM patients versus HS controls.
Fig. 2Eleven candidate differentially expressed miRNAs were selected from the exploratory cohort (A) Hierarchical clustering of the differentiation between TB patients and controls based on the expression of 11 DE exosomal miRNAs. The exploratory set included 11 TB patients (4 TBM patients and 7 PTB patients) and 8 HS controls. A red diamond indicates increased miRNA expression, a green diamond represents decreased miRNA expression, and deeper colour means a larger fold change. (B) The expression of 11 miRNAs in the exploratory cohort. FDR: false discovery rate. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 3The alteration of exosomal miRNAs before and after 2-month intensive anti-TB therapy The altered miRNA expression of 6 DE exosomal miRNAs was calculated using log2 miRNA (post-treatment expression / pre-treatment expression ratio). The fold-change threshold was set at 2. A total of 90 points were detected in 15 TB patients, among which the expression of 55 points significantly declined (red lines), 29 points did not obviously change (not shown in the figure for the sake of brevity), and only 6 points increased (black lines). The Wilcoxon matched-paired rank test was used for comparisons between paired samples (p = 4.80 × 10−5). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Performances of the comparative diagnostic models.
| Models | Cross-validation in the selection cohort | Testing cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (EHR + miRNA /miRNA / EHR) | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity |
| TBM | 0.97/0.97/0.60 | 0.94/0.97/1 | 1/0.95/0.43 | 0.97/0.95/0.67 | 0.94/0.93/0.71 | 0.95/0.97/1 |
| PTB | 0.94/0.80/0.89 | 1/0.62/0.97 | 0.84/1/0.70 | 0.97/0.87/0.93 | 0.89/0.70/0.93 | 0.89/1/0.82 |
| TBM | 0.94/0.86/0.88 | 1/1/1 | 0.91/0.77/0.91 | 0.98/0.85/0.96 | 1/1/0.93 | 0.86/0.81/0.95 |
| PTB | 0.99/0.78/0.98 | 1/0.96/0.91 | 0.98/0.70/0.98 | 0.99/0.81/0.99 | 0.95/0.95/1 | 0.98/0.76/0.98 |
Notes: The labeling ‘(EHR + miRNA / miRNA / EHR)’ indicates the model with EHR and miRNA data, the model with miRNAs only, and the model with EHR only, respectively. The 95% confidence intervals are presented in the Supplemental Material. Section 8.
Fig. 4Modeling result for TBM versus TBM-DC (A) AUC values in the selection cohort with tuning parameter Penalty C. Penalty C is a regularization parameter, which aims to trade off the misclassification of training examples against the simplicity of the decision surface and reduce the redundancy between features. The hyper-parameter set with a maximum AUC in the concatenated validation sets was finally used to establish the models. In detail, the model predictions in each validation set (3-fold) are concatenated. (B) AUC values in the testing cohort with models built with the best hyper-parameter set and trained on the whole selection cohort. (C) The top 10 important features of the models and their corresponding ranks. As raw data were normalized, features with higher absolute coefficient values were considered more important. A coefficient >0 and <0 means a positive and a negative correlation with TBM prediction, respectively. (D) Unsupervised PCA visualization for TBM differentiation based on the top 10 features of the trained "EHR+miRNA" model.