The lived experience of functional bowel disorders: a machine learning approach

Study design

A single online questionnaire was administered to two existing cohorts of individuals using convenience sampling methods. The two groups were:

1. ContactMe-IBS (established 2017) – a national irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) registry of people who are interested in participating in IBS research (https://www.contactme-ibs.co.uk). ContactMe-IBS is owned by the NHS (County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust). Registrants are primarily from the Northeast (actively promoted within Durham Bowel Dysfunction Service) and the Southwest where GPs are particularly research active with ContactMe-IBS. Access to the registry is via numerous sources including GP practices, gastroenterology clinics, pharmacies, and social media. During registration, participants self-identify as having IBS by completing screening questions based on Rome IV criteria⁴.

2. Transanal irrigation (TAI) database (established 2019) – a database of patients who have commenced TAI under the care of Durham Bowel Dysfunction Service.

Participants on the registry received primary or secondary care for IBS and gave permission to be informed of active research studies. Over a 4-week period, October - November 2021, registrants of both databases (n = 4480 on ContactMe-IBS; n = 259 on the TAI database) were invited to participate by email link to a questionnaire, or by postal questionnaire if preferred. Online questionnaire data were captured digitally via the web-based REDCap application, a secure system designed to support data collection for research studies. Inclusion in the study required participants to be aged 18 years or older with symptoms of bowel dysfunction, registered on either database and able to understand written and spoken English (for questionnaire completion). Participants who did not respond to the invitation or reminder email, or those who did not fully complete the questionnaire, were excluded.

Materials

The study used an 88-item questionnaire requiring ∼35 minutes to complete, organized in the following sections:

1. Demographic: including date of birth, sex, ethnicity, and employment status.

2. Nosological: this section was designed to characterize the FBD type of the participant. The scoring algorithms of the ROME IV⁴ criteria were used to identify primary diagnostic groups: irritable bowel syndrome (constipation [IBS-C], diarrhea [IBS-D] predominant, or mixed [IBS-M]); functional constipation (FC); functional diarrhea (FD); or fecal incontinence (FI). Criteria for evacuatory dysfunction (ED) did not depend on investigations, but relied on symptom scores for straining, a feeling of blockage, a feeling of incomplete evacuation and the need to digitate, with questions and scoring of these aligned to the ROME IV questionnaire.

3. Primary symptom: respondents were asked to report their primary symptom from a choice of ‘abdominal pain’, ‘bloating’, ‘watery stools’, ‘hard stools’, and ‘frequent bowel movements’, including quantified severity and duration experienced.

4. Bowel habit: the Bristol Stool Form Scale was used to identify stool type¹⁷, and the ROME IV⁴ criteria individual question data used to assess bowel habit.

5. Treatment: A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure perceived effectiveness for a range of trialed treatments. These included medicinal (such as laxative, enema, suppository) and non-medicinal (such as pelvic floor/sphincter exercises, footstool use during defecation, fluid and/or dietary changes). Questions on the use and effectiveness of TAI for the management of FBDs were developed by the study team, consisting of seven single answer multiple choice questions and a VAS for patient-perceived effectiveness. Data were not curated or designed for treatment comparisons, but rather to delineate the determinants of patient-perceived effectiveness to a given regime.

6. Life impact: the impact of FBDs on QoL was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale based on the Patient Assessment of Constipation on Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaire^5,18. PAC-QOL wording was widened to reflect all FBDs, for example ‘constipation’ was amended to ‘bowel symptoms’, and questions related directly to constipation were omitted (Q2,Q4,Q20,Q21,Q24 from PAC-QOL¹⁸). This approach would enable insight to the impact of any set of bowel symptoms to a patient, rather than placing focus on specific disease subtypes. The EQ5D-5L General Health¹⁹ was used to explore the impact of FBDs on mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression. Patient rating of their overall health was also measured by VAS. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire²⁰ was used to assess impairment in activities of daily living (ADL) and employment-related productivity. Questions elicited employment status, absenteeism (percentage of work hours missed due to bowel symptoms), presenteeism (the degree to which symptoms affect work productivity whilst working), percentage of work hours missed for other reasons, and the degree to which symptoms affected other ADLs in the preceding 7 days.

7. Healthcare use: questions determined whether the participant had been admitted to hospital for bowel symptoms; and their access to healthcare including physiotherapy, general practitioner (GP), consultant gastroenterologist, GP/district/specialist nurse, and dietician.

8. COVID-19: comprising single response multiple choice questions explored how the COVID- 19 pandemic affected individuals.

Algorithmic approach

FBDs are a complex set of disorders that are both impacted by, and have profound impact upon, a wide array of interacting biological, social, and psychological factors. A study seeking to predict or characterize one single constitutional, diagnosis, disease, treatment, life impact, or healthcare access feature in such a cohort could only increase its understanding by small margins. Our task here is to find a means to understand the disease process for these patients in a much broader sense, developing a suite of statistical models aiming to predict all patient factors instead.

In undertaking such an approach, we forgo any clinical assumptions, harnessing a data-driven method that allows machine models to identify which constitutional, diagnostic, disease, treatment, life impact, or healthcare access factors are predictable, whilst simultaneously revealing the data-driven determinants of them. Our framework tests the hypotheses that 1) a machine model shall discern what patient factors plausibly can – and perhaps equally important, what cannot be – predicted from their remaining data, and 2) a machine model shall identify the greatest determinants of a given patient feature, both of which have downstream clinical utility in decision support, patient monitoring, and treatment.

A practical example is the prediction of patient-reported health quality. In determining the extent to which patient-reported health quality can be predicted from other constitutional and clinical data, this reveals the capacity for healthcare professionals to ascertain it from data routinely available. Where patient-reported health quality is readily predictable by a machine model, then its determining factor(s) can guide practice, whether that is in patient triaging or treatment monitoring. If, however health quality is not predictable, then this informs us that data currently curated, inclusive of patient constitution, diagnosis, and healthcare access, do not inform it, so in our practice we should not make assumptions as to how a patient would rate their personal health without seeking further information.

We therefore developed a software-embodied, end-to-end, multivariate framework to fully interrogate patient data, inclusive of data organization and multivariate missingness imputation, yielding a platform of machine learning extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) models optimized to predict a set of given inputs, all evaluated out-of-sample on a separate test set (Figure 1)²¹. XGBoost is an architecture that employs a parallel ensemble of gradient boosted weak-learner decision trees, which has shown superior performance in multiple machine learning tasks with tabular data²¹. We partitioned data 80:20 into model training (n=940) and testing (n=235) sets; the latter was completely excluded through all model development and evaluated only after complete development of all models. This pipeline is described in greater detail throughout the supplementary material.

Our algorithmic approach yielded a comprehensive set of machine models trained to predict each patient feature from the remainder, importance metrics (SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)²²) which shed light on the strongest determinants of each feature and model performance metrics, all evaluated out of sample. We then consolidated these findings formally with a nested stochastic block model (SBM), a Bayesian generative model of a network that aims to find the most optimum community structure^14,23–28. Just as the London Underground network is comprised of stations (nodes) and tracks between them (edges), organized by different train lines, here we study patient factors as nodes, and the prediction importance metrics as edges connecting factors to one-another. By fitting an SBM to these data it reveals the most compact representation of how patient factors are organized.

Data and code availability

All code will be made publicly available upon publication at https://github.com/jamesruffle/perspective-ai. Trained model weights are available upon request. Data and code availability is in line with UK government policy on open-source code. Patient data are not available for dissemination under the ethical framework that governs its use.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by local institutional review board and conducted in accordance with the “Declaration of Helsinki”. The Health Research Authority approved this study prior to commencement. REC reference 21/SW/0086 (IRAS ID 296856).

Cohort

We received 1175 responses from 4739 patients (response rate 24.8%), who formed our analysis cohort. Mean age was 52 years (range 20-80 years): female (n=1000) and male (n=175) (Figure 1). 642 patients fulfilled the ROME-IV criteria for IBS (IBS-C n=133, IBS-M n=237 IBS-D n=246, IBS-U n=26). Further functional bowel disorder diagnoses yielded were functional constipation (n=173), and functional diarrhea (n=157). The remaining 203 patients demonstrated symptoms rendering them non-classifiable due to syndromic overlap in (n=130), or exclusion from (n=73), current classification systems.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Study design.

A) Flow diagram. B) Geospatial referral distribution.

We derived a hierarchical clustering representation of how patient factors were interrelated by pairwise correlation coefficient (Figure 2). This illustrated that when comparing linear relationships between patient factors they generally align to self-explanatory domains. For example, measures of irrigation use and patient-reported effectiveness thereof were highly correlated and clustered together (r 0.64 or higher, all FDR-corrected p<0.0001). Similarly, measures of pain were highly correlated and clustered together, as well as pain-criterion diagnoses such as IBS (r 0.40 or higher, all FDR-corrected p<0.0001). Patient-reported effectiveness of several treatments formed another cluster, both medicinal (laxative use), and non-medicinal (including changes to diet, fluid intake, footstall use, and pelvic or sphincter exercises): r range 0.13-0.50, all FDR-corrected p<0.0001. Pain severity, impact of bowel symptoms on daily activities, and impact on measures of assisted daily living (ADLs) formed another cluster (r 0.32 or higher, all FDR-corrected p<0.0001). Finally, engagement and requirement of healthcare services formed a weak cluster, including if seen by a medical consultant, general practitioner, dietician, and nurse (r range 0.12-0.45, FDR-corrected p<0.0001).

Taken together, these analyses show that many aspects of patient data cluster together into relatively self-explanatory domains. Measures of abdominal pain (and FBD diagnoses made by the presence of pain¹) cluster together. Where an aspect of patient daily life is disrupted, disruption to other aspects of their life is also likely. Where response to one treatment is identified, there is likely to be some response to another. Key here however is that such an approach only superficially characterizes pairwise and linear relationships between a patient or disease factor, a remit nonlinear machine models allow us to further interrogate.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Feature correlation matrix dendrogram.

Correlation matrix derived by Pearson correlation coefficient, and hierarchical clustering dendrogram derived by the Euclidean distance matrix. Darker red squares depict more positive and darker blue squares depicting more negative correlation coefficients between pairwise factor.

Machine model predictions of all patient factors

The out-of-sample test set performance breakdowns for all models across the different domains of data are shown compactly in Figure 3, Table 1, and Table 2, and described in greater detail within the supplementary material. Regression models (Figure 3A, Table 1) tasked to predict healthcare usage and life impact achieved the best out-of-sample predictive performances, with more variable performances across treatment, pain, demographic, and COVID-19 impact domains. These findings illustrate how healthcare requirements of a given individual could be relatively well determined with machine learning, plausibly applicable to triage systems or healthcare system planning, and similarly how impact on daily life were relatively easily determined also, of relevance to determining the wider impact of disease at both the individual and societal level, whereas predicting individual treatment response in this cohort was a far harder task.

Classification models are shown in panel Figure 3B and Table 2, demonstrating that disease classification (nosology) was overall most predictable, followed by bowel habit, healthcare usage, pain, COVID-19 impact, and treatment data. The high classification accuracy of patient diagnosis is an expected finding, given the clear constellation of signs and symptoms that determine them⁴, yet the ability to accurately determine employment status, healthcare usage (and type of) at the individual level holds plausible value for quantifying the wider impact the FBDs cause, pertinent to the patient lived experience.

A key advantage of machine learning is its ability to undertake feature selection, automatically choosing the greatest determinants of a given modelling target to build the best performing model. In reviewing the feature importance and contributions across all model targets, it transpired that whilst patient factors of life impact, demographics, and bowel habit, were commonly selected by XGBoost, rarely was the patient’s diagnostic label, suggestive that diagnosis was in fact minimally helpful in predicting wider patient factors (Figure 3C).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Machine model performances and feature importance across all domains.

A) Test-set performance for regression models (in R²). B) Test-set performance for classification models (in % balanced accuracy). C) Feature occurrence across all modelling tasks, illustrating the frequent use of life impact measures in machine model predictions, where diagnostic (nosological) data use was uncommon. All panels are stratified and color-coded by domain of data as shown on the y-axes.

Determinants of symptom burden and quality of life

Models predicted symptom burden and quality of life measures relatively well, relying predominantly on life-impact, mental wellbeing, and age to determine them, but importantly not diagnostic label. We provide a breakdown of performant models in determining symptom burden and quality of life metrics with SHAP plots in Figure 4, also further discussed within the supplementary material.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Determinants of symptom burden and quality of life.

SHAP plots for machine learning models quantifying patient A) personal health rating, B) pain severity, C) anxiety and depression severity, and D) modified PACQOL. Out-of-sample performance is shown by R² and mean absolute error (MAE). Only the top 5 predictive factors of each target are shown for visualization purposes. For each panel, each point represents a patient, and each row an input feature to the model, where positive x-axis values depict positive impact on the model output, and redder points depict higher feature values. For example, panel A) shows the top predictive feature for personal health rating to be impact on ADLs, where a greater (i.e., more detrimental) impact on ADLs were associated with the patient reporting a lower (i.e., worse) personal health rating. Diagnosis was not selected by the models as informative in their prediction.

Determinants of life impact from functional bowel disorders

Models predicted life impact targets highly accurately, determined largely by hospital attendance data, employment status, other life impact measures, mental wellbeing, and pain data, but not diagnostic label. We provide a breakdown of performant models in determining life impact with SHAP plots in Figure 5 and is further discussed within the supplementary material.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Determinants of life impact.

SHAP plots for machine learning models quantifying patient A) employment status, B) impact of bowel symptoms on daily activities, C) frequency of healthcare attendance for bowel symptoms, and D) impact of mental health and wellbeing from the pandemic. Out-of-sample performance is shown by % balanced accuracy and AUROC for classification models (A), with R² and mean absolute error (MAE) for regression models (B-D). Only the top 5 predictive factors of each target are shown for visualization purposes. A description of interpreting SHAP plots is given in the legend to Figure 4. Diagnosis was not selected by the models as informative in their prediction.

Determinants of patient-reported treatment effectiveness

Model performance in predicting patient-perceived treatment effectiveness was more variable. Despite variable performance, patient-reported treatment response to one intervention was largely predictive for response to another. Conversely, those refractory to one intervention were likely to be refractory to others. We provide a breakdown of performant models in determining patient-perceived treatment effectiveness with SHAP plots in Figure 6.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6. Determinants of treatment response.

SHAP plots for machine learning models predicting effectiveness of A) laxatives, B) dietary changes, C) footstool usage during defecation, D) fluid intake changes, E) pelvic floor or sphincter exercises, F) probiotics, G) suppositories, and H) enemas. Out-of-sample performance is shown by R² and mean absolute error (MAE). Only the top 5 predictive factors of each target are shown for visualization purposes. A description of interpreting SHAP plots is given in the legend to Figure 4. Diagnosis only features in one of eight treatment models, where predictive performance was also notably poor (panel G).

The foregoing analyses illuminate relationships between singular aspects of the patient lived experience. Whilst disclosing non-linear and higher-order relationships between sets of factors in predicting another, the approach lacks an all-encompassing compact summary of the patient lived experience that only an unsupervised approach could offer. This is best approximated by a generative model of a network. A nested generative stochastic block model comprising all factors as nodes, with weighted directed edges as feature contributions to each machine model, revealed a sophisticated community structure of patient factors (Figure 7). This was broadly organized into the domains of nosology, life impact, treatment effects, and symptomology. The network structure reiterated the importance of symptom and life impact factors, as opposed to those related to diagnosis.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7. A generative network community structure for the lived experience of functional bowel disorders.

Radial network of the nested, generative Bayesian stochastic block model community structure of patient factors. Nodes are individual circles with corresponding text label, sized according to their importance in predicting all other target nodes. Edges are weighted by the directional feature importance in predicting one feature over another, where edge width and color is proportional to the key. Node communities are similarly color coded as per the key at the second hierarchical level. Supplementary Figure 2 accompanies this figure with additional results.

We extracted the weighted eigenvector, hub, authority, and centrality metrics of each community block at the second nested level. Eigenvector centrality is a measure of a node’s ‘influence’ across the whole network²⁹. The Hyperlink-Induced Topic Search (HITS) is a centrality algorithm historically developed for rating world-wide web pages, stemming from the observation that when the internet was originally forming, certain web pages operated as large directories – hubs – yet were not authoritative with respect to information contained within them, although were indeed helpful as catalogues to direct people to the authoritative pages^30,31. Framed differently, a ‘good hub’ of a network of the internet is one that points to many other pages, whilst a ‘good authority’ would be a page linked by many different hubs³².

Analysis of our network found the node community consisting of constipation or diarrheal disease nosology had significantly greater hub centrality than all other node blocks (the measure of how often a node links to other factors irrespective of how informative or authoritative it may be) (one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey p<0.0001) (Figure 8). Meanwhile, two communities consisting of treatment effects and life impact measures had significantly greater eigenvector centrality (the measure of a node’s ‘influence’ across the whole network) (one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey p<0.0001). Similarly, the node community of treatment effectiveness related to probiotic and laxatives, and node community related to life impact, both yielded significantly greater authority centrality (the measure of how informative and authoritative a node is to the remaining network) (one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey p<0.0001).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8. Diagnoses are hubs, but life impacts and treatment effects are authorities and influencers.

Box and whisker plots illustrating centrality metrics of A) the nosology node community from the nested stochastic block model comprising if the patient suffers from diarrhea, constipation, or any form of evacuatory difficulty; B) life-impact including to self-care, mobility, ability to work, healthcare access and mental wellbeing; C) the treatment effectivity node community comprising the effects of probiotics, effects of laxatives, and also a diagnosis of functional diarrhea; and D) the treatment effectivity node community comprising the effects of pelvic floor/sphincter exercises, dietary or fluid changes, and footstool use during defecation. Refer to Figure 7 for radial representation of this network community structure. **** denotes a post-hoc Tukey significance test of p<0.0001 following one-way ANOVA.

The lived experience of functional bowel disorders

Modern medicine has become an algorithmic science: the clinician assesses symptoms, orders tests, and classifies the illness into a diagnostic category on which therapy is based. In FBDs there are no objective measures that sub-classify patients based on pathophysiology; instead, symptom-based classifications are crafted to aid management. Whilst this can be helpful, it may over-simplify the portrayal of a complex multi-dimensional condition. We have conducted a holistic characterization of a large cohort of patients with FBD using a multi-dimensional machine learning approach without prior assumptions on the determinants of the lived experience. The main pertinent findings are twofold:

• (1) we reveal in unprecedented detail the determinants of patient-reported symptom burden, quality of-life, life impact, and treatment effectiveness, as well as providing the framework for predicting them. These determinants are, in many ways, at odds with what we, as healthcare professionals, often assign as the determinants of health and wellbeing; examples are discussed below.

• (2) Our network analysis, summarizing the output of a comprehensive machine modelling framework, reveals the high-dimensional community structure of these patient factors. This process formally quantifies that, whilst the nosological domains of disease we categorize patients with are network hubs that link many aspects of patient health and wellbeing, they are poorly influential (or authoritative) in describing the broader aspects of patient health. Rather, it is a focus on patient-reported treatment effectiveness and impact on a patient’s daily life that are instead quantitatively authoritative and influential.

The value in developing a suite of machine models to predict these characteristics is not merely the depiction of those with high performance (which is often the case in machine learning research). Rather, the process illuminates what can, but equally importantly what also cannot, be determined from data routinely available in a clinical setting. It should come as no surprise that a diagnosis of IBS can be predicted perfectly from metrics of abdominal pain and gastrointestinal disturbance: these factors are definitional for a diagnosis of IBS by current classification systems^2,4. More important however is the fidelity of models to ascertain other aspects of patient health, such as the effect of young age or employment status, which are not as intuitive.

The determinants of patient health and well-being

Machine learning models are often described as sophisticated in their ability to formulate a decision based on nonlinear interactions amongst complex multivariate data^11,12, but the reality is that the healthcare professional reviewing a patient undertakes similar processes to inform their clinical decision making¹¹. To that end, we have described the determinants of ill health from the perspective of the patient, such that these factors can be considered in the clinical consultation.

The interacting structure of patient health and well-being

We harmonized the findings to construct a Bayesian generative network revealing the community structure of factors affecting those living with FBDs. Broadly, these feature communities coalesce to nosology, life impact, treatment effects, and symptomology. Interestingly however, we show that the nosological branch of these factors – i.e., the domains of disease leading to diagnostic labels we assign to these patients – are ‘hubs’ in this network (a feature that points to many other) but are in fact minimally influential^29,30,36. Instead, it is the communities of life impact and treatment effectiveness that are quantitatively more influential (with higher eigenvector centrality) and authoritative (with higher authority centrality) in the remaining aspects of their health. Taken together, these findings suggest that the assignment of disease labels to these patients is in fact often minimally helpful in disclosing or influencing the broader FBD lived experience, as shown elsewhere in the comparison of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and functional constipation^2,37. Instead, we should place greater efforts to reducing life impacts and improving treatment effects through a holistic approach.

Study limitations

The study quantified a breadth of patient factors feasibly acquired during routine clinical care, ranging from demographic, diagnostic, symptomology, quality of life, healthcare access, and patient-reported effectiveness of regularly given treatments. One limitation is that we did not quantify more comprehensive and/or specialist investigations (e.g., microbiota, gastrointestinal imaging, genetic, or an exhaustive list of comorbidity data) since this would have limited applicability and generalizability of the findings to centers in which these are not part of routine care. To our strength, in maximizing the quantification of variables that are routinely available, we were able to sample a large cohort from which we could construct a suite of machine learning models with proven fidelity that could be evaluated and/or deployed in similar centers.

Secondly, the study was not designed to clinically trial specific treatments. Rather, it was designed as a cross-sectional study, where patients could self-report the effectiveness of the range of therapies they had experienced throughout their care. This limits inference that could be drawn from an experimental allocation i.e., a randomized controlled trial, but it does quantify the response to treatment with explicit emphasis on the individual patient experience (as opposed to any biochemical/investigatory endpoint). In any case, our emphasis was to illuminate the determinants of patient-reported response to treatment in general, as opposed to quantifying the superiority/non-inferiority of one treatment over another.

Thirdly, our study was not designed to investigate directional effects. One might suggest a plausible directionality of impaired GI health leading to a triad of increased healthcare utilization, loss of productivity/employment, and worsening QoL/mental wellbeing, but must conform to the appropriate criteria for establishing causality³⁸. An additional analytical route would be the use of dedicated causal inference, a task for future research³⁹.