Towards data-driven biopsychosocial classification of non-specific chronic low back pain: a pilot study.

The classification of non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) according to multidimensional data could guide clinical management; yet recent systematic reviews show this has not been attempted. This was a prospective cross-sectional study of participants with CLBP (n = 21) and age-, sex- and height-matched pain-free controls (n = 21). Nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors were collected. Dimensionality reduction was followed by fuzzy c-means clustering to determine sub-groups. Machine learning models (Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbour, Naïve Bayes and Random Forest) were used to determine the accuracy of classification to sub-groups. The primary analysis showed that four factors (cognitive function, depressive symptoms, general self-efficacy and anxiety symptoms) and two clusters (normal versus impaired psychosocial profiles) optimally classified participants. The error rates in classification models ranged from 4.2 to 14.2% when only CLBP patients were considered and increased to 24.2 to 37.5% when pain-free controls were added. This data-driven pilot study classified participants with CLBP into sub-groups, primarily based on psychosocial factors. This contributes to the literature as it was the first study to evaluate data-driven machine learning CLBP classification based on nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors. Future studies with larger sample sizes should validate these findings.

Chronic back pain sub-grouped via psychosocial, brain and physical factors using machine learning.

Chronic back pain (CBP) is heterogenous and identifying sub-groups could improve clinical decision making. Machine learning can build upon prior sub-grouping approaches by using a data-driven approach to overcome clinician subjectivity, however, only binary classification of pain versus no-pain has been attempted to date. In our cross-sectional study, age- and sex-matched participants with CBP (n = 4156) and pain-free controls (n = 14,927) from the UkBioBank were included. We included variables of body mass index, depression, loneliness/social isolation, grip strength, brain grey matter volumes and functional connectivity. We used fuzzy c-means clustering to derive CBP sub-groups and Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes, k-Nearest Neighbour (kNN) and Random Forest classifiers to determine classification accuracy. We showed that two variables (loneliness/social isolation and depression) and five clusters were optimal for creating sub-groups of CBP individuals. Classification accuracy was greater than 95% for when CBP sub-groups were assessed only, while misclassification in CBP sub-groups increased to 35-53% across classifiers when pain-free controls were added. We showed that individuals with CBP could sub-grouped and accurately classified. Future research should optimise variables by including specific spinal, psychosocial and nervous system measures associated with CBP to create more robust sub-groups that are discernible from pain-free controls.

Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs.