COVID Mortality Prediction with Machine Learning Methods: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bottino F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8467935 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7222643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInjuries are common in sports and can have significant physical, psychological and financial consequences. Machine learning (ML) methods could be used to improve injury prediction and allow proper approaches to injury prevention. The aim of our study was therefore to perform a systematic review of ML methods in sport injury prediction and prevention.MethodsA search of the PubMed database was performed on March 24th 2020. Eligible articles included original studies investigating the role of ML for sport injury prediction and prevention. Two independent reviewers screened articles, assessed eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Methodological quality and risk of bias were determined by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study quality was evaluated using the GRADE working group methodology.ResultsEleven out of 249 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Different ML methods were used (tree-based ensemble methods (n = 9), Support Vector Machines (n = 4), Artificial Neural Networks (n = 2)). The classification methods were facilitated by preprocessing steps (n = 5) and optimized using over- and undersampling methods (n = 6), hyperparameter tuning (n = 4), feature selection (n = 3) and dimensionality reduction (n = 1). Injury predictive performance ranged from poor (Accuracy = 52%, AUC = 0.52) to strong (AUC = 0.87, f1-score = 85%).ConclusionsCurrent ML methods can be used to identify athletes at high injury risk and be helpful to detect the most important injury risk factors. Methodological quality of the analyses was sufficient in general, but could be further improved. More effort should be put in the interpretation of the ML models.
| S-EPMC8046881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to assess the performance and clinical feasibility of machine learning (ML) algorithms in prediction of in-hospital mortality for medical patients using vital signs at emergency departments (EDs).DesignA systematic review was performed.SettingThe databases including Medline (PubMed), Scopus and Embase (Ovid) were searched between 2010 and 2021, to extract published articles in English, describing ML-based models utilising vital sign variables to predict in-hospital mortality for patients admitted at EDs. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies checklist was used for study planning and data extraction. The risk of bias for included papers was assessed using the prediction risk of bias assessment tool.ParticipantsAdmitted patients to the ED.Main outcome measureIn-hospital mortality.ResultsFifteen articles were included in the final review. We found that eight models including logistic regression, decision tree, K-nearest neighbours, support vector machine, gradient boosting, random forest, artificial neural networks and deep neural networks have been applied in this domain. Most studies failed to report essential main analysis steps such as data preprocessing and handling missing values. Fourteen included studies had a high risk of bias in the statistical analysis part, which could lead to poor performance in practice. Although the main aim of all studies was developing a predictive model for mortality, nine articles did not provide a time horizon for the prediction.ConclusionThis review provided an updated overview of the state-of-the-art and revealed research gaps; based on these, we provide eight recommendations for future studies to make the use of ML more feasible in practice. By following these recommendations, we expect to see more robust ML models applied in the future to help clinicians identify patient deterioration earlier.
| S-EPMC8565537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeople presenting with first-episode psychosis (FEP) have heterogenous outcomes. More than 40% fail to achieve symptomatic remission. Accurate prediction of individual outcome in FEP could facilitate early intervention to change the clinical trajectory and improve prognosis.AimsWe aim to systematically review evidence for prediction models developed for predicting poor outcome in FEP.MethodA protocol for this study was published on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42019156897. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance, we systematically searched six databases from inception to 28 January 2021. We used the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to extract and appraise the outcome prediction models. We considered study characteristics, methodology and model performance.ResultsThirteen studies reporting 31 prediction models across a range of clinical outcomes met criteria for inclusion. Eleven studies used logistic regression with clinical and sociodemographic predictor variables. Just two studies were found to be at low risk of bias. Methodological limitations identified included a lack of appropriate validation, small sample sizes, poor handling of missing data and inadequate reporting of calibration and discrimination measures. To date, no model has been applied to clinical practice.ConclusionsFuture prediction studies in psychosis should prioritise methodological rigour and external validation in larger samples. The potential for prediction modelling in FEP is yet to be realised.
| S-EPMC7612705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the rising prevalence of diabetes, machine learning (ML) models have been increasingly used for prediction of diabetes and its complications, due to their ability to handle large complex data sets. This study aims to evaluate the quality and performance of ML models developed to predict microvascular and macrovascular diabetes complications in an adult Type 2 diabetes population.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE®, Embase®, the Cochrane® Library, Web of Science®, and DBLP Computer Science Bibliography databases according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. Studies that developed or validated ML prediction models for microvascular or macrovascular complications in people with Type 2 diabetes were included. Prediction performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). An AUC >0.75 indicates clearly useful discrimination performance, while a positive mean relative AUC difference indicates better comparative model performance.ResultsOf 13 606 articles screened, 32 studies comprising 87 ML models were included. Neural networks (n = 15) were the most frequently utilized. Age, duration of diabetes, and body mass index were common predictors in ML models. Across predicted outcomes, 36% of the models demonstrated clearly useful discrimination. Most ML models reported positive mean relative AUC compared with non-ML methods, with random forest showing the best overall performance for microvascular and macrovascular outcomes. Majority (n = 31) of studies had high risk of bias.ConclusionsRandom forest was found to have the overall best prediction performance. Current ML prediction models remain largely exploratory, and external validation studies are required before their clinical implementation.Protocol registrationOpen Science Framework (registration number: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UP49X).
| S-EPMC10012374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsEsophageal cancer risk prediction models allow for risk-stratified endoscopic screening. We aimed to assess the quality of these models developed in the general population.MethodsA systematic search of the PubMed and Embase databases from January 2000 through May 2021 was performed. Studies that developed or validated a model of esophageal cancer in the general population were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessment by the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were performed independently by two reviewers.ResultsOf the 13 models included in the qualitative analysis, 8 were developed for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and the other 5 were developed for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Only two models conducted external validation. In the ESCC models, cigarette smoking was included in each model, followed by age, sex, and alcohol consumption. For EAC models, cigarette smoking and body mass index were included in each model, and gastroesophageal reflux disease, uses of acid-suppressant medicine, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug were exclusively included. The discriminative performance was reported in all studies, with C statistics ranging from 0.71 to 0.88, whereas only six models reported calibration. For ROB, all the models had a low risk in participant and outcome, but all models showed high risk in analysis, and 60% of models showed a high risk in predictors, which resulted in all models being classified as having overall high ROB. For model applicability, about 60% of these models had an overall low risk, with 30% of models of high risk and 10% of models of unclear risk, concerning the assessment of participants, predictors, and outcomes.ConclusionsMost current risk prediction models of esophageal cancer have a high ROB. Prediction models need further improvement in their quality and applicability to benefit esophageal cancer screening.
| S-EPMC8525074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: This work aims to systematically identify, describe, and appraise all prognostic models for cervical cancer and provide a reference for clinical practice and future research. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases up to December 2020 and included studies developing, validating, or updating a prognostic model for cervical cancer. Two reviewers extracted information based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modeling Studies checklist and assessed the risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Results: Fifty-six eligible articles were identified, describing the development of 77 prognostic models and 27 external validation efforts. The 77 prognostic models focused on three types of cervical cancer patients at different stages, i.e., patients with early-stage cervical cancer (n = 29; 38%), patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (n = 27; 35%), and all-stage cervical cancer patients (n = 21; 27%). Among the 77 models, the most frequently used predictors were lymph node status (n = 57; 74%), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (n = 42; 55%), histological types (n = 38; 49%), and tumor size (n = 37; 48%). The number of models that applied internal validation, presented a full equation, and assessed model calibration was 52 (68%), 16 (21%), and 45 (58%), respectively. Twenty-four models were externally validated, among which three were validated twice. None of the models were assessed with an overall low risk of bias. The Prediction Model of Failure in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer model was externally validated twice, with acceptable performance, and seemed to be the most reliable. Conclusions: Methodological details including internal validation, sample size, and handling of missing data need to be emphasized on, and external validation is needed to facilitate the application and generalization of models for cervical cancer.
| S-EPMC8137851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Osteoporotic fractures (OF) are a global public health problem currently. Many risk prediction models for OF have been developed, but their performance and methodological quality are unclear. We conducted this systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the OF risk prediction models. Three databases were searched until April 2021. Studies developing or validating multivariable models for OF risk prediction were considered eligible. Used the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool to appraise the risk of bias and applicability of included models. All results were narratively summarized and described. A total of 68 studies describing 70 newly developed prediction models and 138 external validations were included. Most models were explicitly developed (n=31, 44%) and validated (n=76, 55%) only for female. Only 22 developed models (31%) were externally validated. The most validated tool was Fracture Risk Assessment Tool. Overall, only a few models showed outstanding (n=3, 1%) or excellent (n=32, 15%) prediction discrimination. Calibration of developed models (n=25, 36%) or external validation models (n=33, 24%) were rarely assessed. No model was rated as low risk of bias, mostly because of an insufficient number of cases and inappropriate assessment of calibration. There are a certain number of OF risk prediction models. However, few models have been thoroughly internally validated or externally validated (with calibration being unassessed for most of the models), and all models showed methodological shortcomings. Instead of developing completely new models, future research is suggested to validate, improve, and analyze the impact of existing models.
| S-EPMC9286920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The existence of widespread COVID-19 infections has prompted worldwide efforts to control and manage the virus, and hopefully curb it completely. One important line of research is the use of machine learning (ML) to understand and fight COVID-19. This is currently an active research field. Although there are already many surveys in the literature, there is a need to keep up with the rapidly growing number of publications on COVID-19-related applications of ML. This paper presents a review of recent reports on ML algorithms used in relation to COVID-19. We focus on the potential of ML for two main applications: diagnosis of COVID-19 and prediction of mortality risk and severity, using readily available clinical and laboratory data. Aspects related to algorithm types, training data sets, and feature selection are discussed. As we cover work published between January 2020 and January 2021, a few key points have come to light. The bulk of the machine learning algorithms used in these two applications are supervised learning algorithms. The established models are yet to be used in real-world implementations, and much of the associated research is experimental. The diagnostic and prognostic features discovered by ML models are consistent with results presented in the medical literature. A limitation of the existing applications is the use of imbalanced data sets that are prone to selection bias.
| S-EPMC8018906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Secondary structure plays an important role in determining the function of noncoding RNAs. Hence, identifying RNA secondary structures is of great value to research. Computational prediction is a mainstream approach for predicting RNA secondary structure. Unfortunately, even though new methods have been proposed over the past 40 years, the performance of computational prediction methods has stagnated in the last decade. Recently, with the increasing availability of RNA structure data, new methods based on machine learning (ML) technologies, especially deep learning, have alleviated the issue. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of RNA secondary structure prediction methods based on ML technologies and a tabularized summary of the most important methods in this field. The current pending challenges in the field of RNA secondary structure prediction and future trends are also discussed.
| S-EPMC8389396 | biostudies-literature