Deep phenotyping of patient lived experience in functional bowel disorders using machine learning

Contemporary clinical management relies on a diagnostic label as the primary guide to treatment. However, individual patients' lived experiences vary more widely than standard diagnostic categories reflect. This is especially true for functional bowel disorders (FBDs), a heterogeneous and challenging group of syndromes where no definitive diagnostic tests, clinical biomarkers, or universally effective treatments exist. Characterising the link between disease and lived experience - in the face of marked patient heterogeneity - requires deep phenotyping of the interactions between multiple characteristics, plausibly achievable only with complex modelling approaches. In a large patient cohort (n = 1175), we developed a machine learning and Bayesian generative graph framework to better understand the lived experience of FBDs. Iterating through 59 factors available from routine clinical care, spanning patient demography, diagnosis, symptomatology, life impact, mental health indices, healthcare access requirements, COVID-19 impact, and treatment effectiveness, machine models were used to quantify the predictive fidelity of one feature from the remainder. Bayesian stochastic block models were used to delineate the network community structure underpinning the heterogeneous lived experience of FBDs. Machine models quantified patient personal health rating (R<sup>2</sup> 0.35), anxiety and depression severity (R<sup>2</sup> 0.54), employment status (balanced accuracy 96%), frequency of healthcare attendance (R<sup>2</sup> 0.71), and patient-reported treatment effectiveness variably (R<sup>2</sup> range 0.08-0.41). Contrary to the view of many healthcare professionals, the greatest model predictors of patient-reported health and quality of life were life impact, mental well-being, employment status, and age, rather than diagnostic group or symptom severity. Patients responsive to one treatment were more likely to respond to another, leaving many others refractory to all. Clinical assessment of patients with FBDs should be less concerned with diagnostic classification than with the wider life impact of illness, including mental health and employment. The stratification of treatment response (and resistance) has implications for clinical practice and trial design, necessitating further research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2025-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19273-3
Primary Topic
Mental Health Research Topics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Deep phenotyping of patient lived experience in functional bowel disorders using machine learning

Parashkev Nachev, Charles H. Knowles, James K. Ruffle, Yan Yiannakou et al.
Scientific Reports
Mental Health Research Topics
article

Deep phenotyping of patient lived experience in functional bowel disorders using machine learning

Parashkev Nachev, Charles H. Knowles, James K. Ruffle, Yan Yiannakou, Cho Ee Ng, Amy Nelson, Trevor Liddle, Michelle Henderson
article en

Abstract

Contemporary clinical management relies on a diagnostic label as the primary guide to treatment. However, individual patients' lived experiences vary more widely than standard diagnostic categories reflect. This is especially true for functional bowel disorders (FBDs), a heterogeneous and challenging group of syndromes where no definitive diagnostic tests, clinical biomarkers, or universally effective treatments exist. Characterising the link between disease and lived experience - in the face of marked patient heterogeneity - requires deep phenotyping of the interactions between multiple characteristics, plausibly achievable only with complex modelling approaches. In a large patient cohort (n = 1175), we developed a machine learning and Bayesian generative graph framework to better understand the lived experience of FBDs. Iterating through 59 factors available from routine clinical care, spanning patient demography, diagnosis, symptomatology, life impact, mental health indices, healthcare access requirements, COVID-19 impact, and treatment effectiveness, machine models were used to quantify the predictive fidelity of one feature from the remainder. Bayesian stochastic block models were used to delineate the network community structure underpinning the heterogeneous lived experience of FBDs. Machine models quantified patient personal health rating (R<sup>2</sup> 0.35), anxiety and depression severity (R<sup>2</sup> 0.54), employment status (balanced accuracy 96%), frequency of healthcare attendance (R<sup>2</sup> 0.71), and patient-reported treatment effectiveness variably (R<sup>2</sup> range 0.08-0.41). Contrary to the view of many healthcare professionals, the greatest model predictors of patient-reported health and quality of life were life impact, mental well-being, employment status, and age, rather than diagnostic group or symptom severity. Patients responsive to one treatment were more likely to respond to another, leaving many others refractory to all. Clinical assessment of patients with FBDs should be less concerned with diagnostic classification than with the wider life impact of illness, including mental health and employment. The stratification of treatment response (and resistance) has implications for clinical practice and trial design, necessitating further research.

Scientific ReportsVol. 15(1)
Queen Mary University of London (GB), County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Danish Nature Agency (DK), University Hospital of North Durham (GB), Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital (GB), NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre (GB), National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB), University College London (GB)
Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health and Care Research, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Medical Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Mental Health Research Topics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.