Dataset Information

Using Machine Learning Technologies in Pressure Injury Management: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pressure injury (PI) is a common and preventable problem, yet it is a challenge for at least two reasons. First, the nurse shortage is a worldwide phenomenon. Second, the majority of nurses have insufficient PI-related knowledge. Machine learning (ML) technologies can contribute to lessening the burden on medical staff by improving the prognosis and diagnostic accuracy of PI. To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing systematic review that evaluates how the current ML technologies are being used in PI management.

Objective

The objective of this review was to synthesize and evaluate the literature regarding the use of ML technologies in PI management, and identify their strengths and weaknesses, as well as to identify improvement opportunities for future research and practice.

Methods

We conducted an extensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Wanfang database, the VIP database, and the China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to identify relevant articles. Searches were performed in June 2020. Two independent investigators conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).

Results

A total of 32 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of those articles (38%) reported using ML technologies to develop predictive models to identify risk factors, 11 (34%) reported using them in posture detection and recognition, and 9 (28%) reported using them in image analysis for tissue classification and measurement of PI wounds. These articles presented various algorithms and measured outcomes. The overall risk of bias was judged as high.

Conclusions

There is an array of emerging ML technologies being used in PI management, and their results in the laboratory show great promise. Future research should apply these technologies on a large scale with clinical data to further verify and improve their effectiveness, as well as to improve the methodological quality.

SUBMITTER: Jiang M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7991995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe study explored the clinical influence, effectiveness, limitations, and human comparison outcomes of machine learning in diagnosing (1) dental diseases, (2) periodontal diseases, (3) trauma and neuralgias, (4) cysts and tumors, (5) glandular disorders, and (6) bone and temporomandibular joint as possible causes of dental and orofacial pain.MethodScopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (all databases) were searched by 2 reviewers until 29th October 2020. Articles were screened and narratively synthesized according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines based on predefined eligibility criteria. Articles that made direct reference test comparisons to human clinicians were evaluated using the MI-CLAIM checklist. The risk of bias was assessed by JBI-DTA critical appraisal, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Information regarding the quantification method of dental pain and disease, the conditional characteristics of both training and test data cohort in the machine learning, diagnostic outcomes, and diagnostic test comparisons with clinicians, where applicable, were extracted.Results34 eligible articles were found for data synthesis, of which 8 articles made direct reference comparisons to human clinicians. 7 papers scored over 13 (out of the evaluated 15 points) in the MI-CLAIM approach with all papers scoring 5+ (out of 7) in JBI-DTA appraisals. GRADE approach revealed serious risks of bias and inconsistencies with most studies containing more positive cases than their true prevalence in order to facilitate machine learning. Patient-perceived symptoms and clinical history were generally found to be less reliable than radiographs or histology for training accurate machine learning models. A low agreement level between clinicians training the models was suggested to have a negative impact on the prediction accuracy. Reference comparisons found nonspecialized clinicians with less than 3 years of experience to be disadvantaged against trained models.ConclusionMachine learning in dental and orofacial healthcare has shown respectable results in diagnosing diseases with symptomatic pain and with improved future iterations and can be used as a diagnostic aid in the clinics. The current review did not internally analyze the machine learning models and their respective algorithms, nor consider the confounding variables and factors responsible for shaping the orofacial disorders responsible for eliciting pain.

Project description:BackgroundAccurately predicting the survival rate of breast cancer patients is a major issue for cancer researchers. Machine learning (ML) has attracted much attention with the hope that it could provide accurate results, but its modeling methods and prediction performance remain controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and critically appraise current studies regarding the application of ML in predicting the 5-year survival rate of breast cancer.MethodsIn accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, two researchers independently searched the PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science Core databases from inception to November 30, 2020. The search terms included breast neoplasms, survival, machine learning, and specific algorithm names. The included studies related to the use of ML to build a breast cancer survival prediction model and model performance that can be measured with the value of said verification results. The excluded studies in which the modeling process were not explained clearly and had incomplete information. The extracted information included literature information, database information, data preparation and modeling process information, model construction and performance evaluation information, and candidate predictor information.ResultsThirty-one studies that met the inclusion criteria were included, most of which were published after 2013. The most frequently used ML methods were decision trees (19 studies, 61.3%), artificial neural networks (18 studies, 58.1%), support vector machines (16 studies, 51.6%), and ensemble learning (10 studies, 32.3%). The median sample size was 37256 (range 200 to 659820) patients, and the median predictor was 16 (range 3 to 625). The accuracy of 29 studies ranged from 0.510 to 0.971. The sensitivity of 25 studies ranged from 0.037 to 1. The specificity of 24 studies ranged from 0.008 to 0.993. The AUC of 20 studies ranged from 0.500 to 0.972. The precision of 6 studies ranged from 0.549 to 1. All of the models were internally validated, and only one was externally validated.ConclusionsOverall, compared with traditional statistical methods, the performance of ML models does not necessarily show any improvement, and this area of research still faces limitations related to a lack of data preprocessing steps, the excessive differences of sample feature selection, and issues related to validation. Further optimization of the performance of the proposed model is also needed in the future, which requires more standardization and subsequent validation.

Project description:Background: Sepsis is among the leading causes of death in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide and its recognition, particularly in the early stages of the disease, remains a medical challenge. The advent of an affluence of available digital health data has created a setting in which machine learning can be used for digital biomarker discovery, with the ultimate goal to advance the early recognition of sepsis. Objective: To systematically review and evaluate studies employing machine learning for the prediction of sepsis in the ICU. Data Sources: Using Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, we systematically searched the existing literature for machine learning-driven sepsis onset prediction for patients in the ICU. Study Eligibility Criteria: All peer-reviewed articles using machine learning for the prediction of sepsis onset in adult ICU patients were included. Studies focusing on patient populations outside the ICU were excluded. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Moreover, a quality assessment of all eligible studies was performed. Results: Out of 974 identified articles, 22 and 21 met the criteria to be included in the systematic review and quality assessment, respectively. A multitude of machine learning algorithms were applied to refine the early prediction of sepsis. The quality of the studies ranged from "poor" (satisfying ≤ 40% of the quality criteria) to "very good" (satisfying ≥ 90% of the quality criteria). The majority of the studies (n = 19, 86.4%) employed an offline training scenario combined with a horizon evaluation, while two studies implemented an online scenario (n = 2, 9.1%). The massive inter-study heterogeneity in terms of model development, sepsis definition, prediction time windows, and outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. Last, only two studies provided publicly accessible source code and data sources fostering reproducibility. Limitations: Articles were only eligible for inclusion when employing machine learning algorithms for the prediction of sepsis onset in the ICU. This restriction led to the exclusion of studies focusing on the prediction of septic shock, sepsis-related mortality, and patient populations outside the ICU. Conclusions and Key Findings: A growing number of studies employs machine learning to optimize the early prediction of sepsis through digital biomarker discovery. This review, however, highlights several shortcomings of the current approaches, including low comparability and reproducibility. Finally, we gather recommendations how these challenges can be addressed before deploying these models in prospective analyses. Systematic Review Registration Number: CRD42020200133.