Abstract
Introduction Spirometry is the gold standard for COPD diagnosis and severity determination, but is technique-dependent, non-specific, and requires administration by a trained healthcare professional. There is a need for a fast, reliable, and precise alternative diagnostic test. This study’s aim was to use interpretable machine learning to diagnose COPD and assess severity using 75-second carbon dioxide (CO2) breath records captured with TidalSense’s N-Tidal™ capnometer.
Methods For COPD diagnosis, machine learning algorithms were trained and evaluated on 294 COPD (including GOLD stages 1-4) and 705 non-COPD participants. A logistic regression model was also trained to distinguish GOLD 1 from GOLD 4 COPD with the output probability used as an index of severity.
Results The best diagnostic model achieved an AUROC of 0.890, sensitivity of 0.771, specificity of 0.850 and positive predictive value of 0.834. A potential clinical use for this model is to rule in or rule out a diagnosis in patients where the model is most confident. Performance on test capnograms with probability >80% and <20% was also evaluated, yielding a PPV of 0.930 and NPV of 0.890. The severity determination model yielded an AUROC of 0.980, Sensitivity of 0.958, Specificity of 0.961 and PPV of 0.958 in distinguishing GOLD 1 from GOLD 4. Output probabilities from the severity determination model produced a correlation of 0.71 with percentage predicted FEV1.
Conclusion The N-Tidal™ device could be used alongside interpretable machine learning as an accurate, point-of-care diagnostic test for COPD, particularly in primary care, as a rapid rule-in or rule-out test. N-Tidal™ also could be effective in monitoring disease progression, providing a possible alternative to spirometry for disease monitoring.
Trial registration Please see NCT03615365, NCT02814253, NCT04504838, NCT03356288 and NCT04939558.
Competing Interest Statement
LT, CD, ABS, JCC, HB, RHL, GL, AXP are currently employed, or were employed/funded at the time of the research, by TidalSense Limited. GH and HFA are funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Community Healthcare MedTech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. All authors declare no competing interests. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Clinical Trial
NCT02814253, NCT03356288, NCT03615365, NCT04504838, NCT04939558
Clinical Protocols
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04939558
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03356288
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02814253
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03615365
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04504838
Funding Statement
The ABRS study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Invention for Innovation (NIHR i4i) Programme (Grant Reference Number: II-LA-1117-20002), the GBRS study was supported by Innovate UK (Grant Reference Number: 102977), the CBRS study was supported by SBRI Healthcare, the CBRS2 study was supported by Pfizer OpenAir and the CARES study was supported by Innovate UK through two grants (Grant Reference Numbers: 133879 and 74355). The authors had sole responsibility for the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation and report writing.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
South Central Berkshire Research Ethics Committee of the UK National Health Service's Health Research Authority gave ethical approval for the GBRS and ABRS studies in this work. Yorkshire and the Humber Research Ethics Committee of the UK National Health Service's Health Research Authority gave ethical approval for the CBRS and CARES studies in this work. West Midlands Solihull Research Ethics Committee of the UK National Health Service's Health Research Authority gave ethical approval for the CBRS2 study in this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available for data protection reasons.
