| Literature DB >> 31138828 |
Meritxell Deulofeu1,2,3, Lenka Kolářová4, Victoria Salvadó5, Eladia María Peña-Méndez6, Martina Almáši7, Martin Štork8, Luděk Pour8, Pere Boadas-Vaello2,3, Sabina Ševčíková9, Josef Havel4,10, Petr Vaňhara11,12.
Abstract
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a highly heterogeneous disease of malignant plasma cells. Diagnosis and monitoring of MM patients is based on bone marrow biopsies and detection of abnormal immunoglobulin in serum and/or urine. However, biopsies have a single-site bias; thus, new diagnostic tests and early detection strategies are needed. Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is a powerful method that found its applications in clinical diagnostics. Artificial intelligence approaches, such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), can handle non-linear data and provide prediction and classification of variables in multidimensional datasets. In this study, we used MALDI-TOF MS to acquire low mass profiles of peripheral blood plasma obtained from MM patients and healthy donors. Informative patterns in mass spectra served as inputs for ANN that specifically predicted MM samples with high sensitivity (100%), specificity (95%) and accuracy (98%). Thus, mass spectrometry coupled with ANN can provide a minimally invasive approach for MM diagnostics.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31138828 PMCID: PMC6538619 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44215-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(A) Box and whisker plot demonstrating varying intensity of 28 peaks of distinct m/z in the training dataset (line: mean; box: 95% confidence intervals; whiskers: standard deviations). (B) Heat map of Pearson’s correlations based on spectral fingerprints in the training dataset.
Figure 2Principal component analysis of the mass spectra of the training (A) and validation (B) datasets. Each point in the PCA plot represents a unique MM patient (red) or a healthy donor (blue). Scree plot documenting the contribution of individual factors to the overall variability within the training (C) and validation (D) datasets.
Figure 3(A) Architecture of the artificial neural network used for the prediction of sample class (MM, HD). (B) Plot documenting prediction capability of the ANN based on 7, 14 or 28 input peaks. (C) Plots documenting ANN classification outputs in the training and validation dataset.
Results of ANN classification.
| Dataset | Training | Verification |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 40 (20 MM, 20 HD) | 44 (24 MM, 20 HD) |
| True positive (MM) | 20 (100%) | 23 (95.83%) |
| True negative (HD) | 20 (100%) | 19 (95.00%) |
| False positive | 0 | 1 (5.00%) |
| False negative | 0 | 0 |
| Unidentified | 0 | 1 (4.17%)* |
| Sensitivity [%] | 100% | 95.83% |
| Specificity [%] | 100% | 95.00% |
| Accuracy [%] | 100% | 95.45% |
*Unidentified case (MM) arbitrarily classified as false negative.
Experimental cohorts entering the analysis.
| Group |
| Gender | Age median (min-max) [years] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Healthy donor | 20 | M = 10 F = 10 | 67 (51–66) |
| Multiple myeloma | 20 | M = 10 F = 10 | 67 (57–83) | |
|
| Healthy donor | 20 | M = 10 F = 10 | 56 (54–64) |
| Multiple myeloma | 24 | M = 12 F = 12 | 71 (47–95) |