Evaluating machine learning models for sepsis prediction: A systematic review of methodologies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Deng HF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8741489 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8193357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Machine learning (ML) studies are becoming increasingly popular in orthopedics but lack a critically appraisal of their adherence to peer-reviewed guidelines. The objective of this review was to (1) evaluate quality and transparent reporting of ML prediction models in orthopedic surgery based on the transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD), and (2) assess risk of bias with the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. A systematic review was performed to identify all ML prediction studies published in orthopedic surgery through June 18th, 2020. After screening 7138 studies, 59 studies met the study criteria and were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by discussion with at least two additional reviewers present. Across all studies, the overall median completeness for the TRIPOD checklist was 53% (interquartile range 47%-60%). The overall risk of bias was low in 44% (n = 26), high in 41% (n = 24), and unclear in 15% (n = 9). High overall risk of bias was driven by incomplete reporting of performance measures, inadequate handling of missing data, and use of small datasets with inadequate outcome numbers. Although the number of ML studies in orthopedic surgery is increasing rapidly, over 40% of the existing models are at high risk of bias. Furthermore, over half incompletely reported their methods and/or performance measures. Until these issues are adequately addressed to give patients and providers trust in ML models, a considerable gap remains between the development of ML prediction models and their implementation in orthopedic practice.
| S-EPMC9290012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effects of using unstructured clinical text in machine learning (ML) for prediction, early detection, and identification of sepsis.Materials and methodsPubMed, Scopus, ACM DL, dblp, and IEEE Xplore databases were searched. Articles utilizing clinical text for ML or natural language processing (NLP) to detect, identify, recognize, diagnose, or predict the onset, development, progress, or prognosis of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock were included. Sepsis definition, dataset, types of data, ML models, NLP techniques, and evaluation metrics were extracted.ResultsThe clinical text used in models include narrative notes written by nurses, physicians, and specialists in varying situations. This is often combined with common structured data such as demographics, vital signs, laboratory data, and medications. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) comparison of ML methods showed that utilizing both text and structured data predicts sepsis earlier and more accurately than structured data alone. No meta-analysis was performed because of incomparable measurements among the 9 included studies.DiscussionStudies focused on sepsis identification or early detection before onset; no studies used patient histories beyond the current episode of care to predict sepsis. Sepsis definition affects reporting methods, outcomes, and results. Many methods rely on continuous vital sign measurements in intensive care, making them not easily transferable to general ward units.ConclusionsApproaches were heterogeneous, but studies showed that utilizing both unstructured text and structured data in ML can improve identification and early detection of sepsis.
| S-EPMC8800516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cancer is driven by distinctive sorts of changes and basic variations in genes. Recognizing cancer driver genes is basic for accurate oncological analysis. Numerous methodologies to distinguish and identify drivers presently exist, but efficient tools to combine and optimize them on huge datasets are few. Most strategies for prioritizing transformations depend basically on frequency-based criteria. Strategies are required to dependably prioritize organically dynamic driver changes over inert passengers in high-throughput sequencing cancer information sets. This study proposes a model namely PCDG-Pred which works as a utility capable of distinguishing cancer driver and passenger attributes of genes based on sequencing data. Keeping in view the significance of the cancer driver genes an efficient method is proposed to identify the cancer driver genes. Further, various validation techniques are applied at different levels to establish the effectiveness of the model and to obtain metrics like accuracy, Mathew's correlation coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity. The results of the study strongly indicate that the proposed strategy provides a fundamental functional advantage over other existing strategies for cancer driver genes identification. Subsequently, careful experiments exhibit that the accuracy metrics obtained for self-consistency, independent set, and cross-validation tests are 91.08%., 87.26%, and 92.48% respectively.
| S-EPMC8192921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeEarly clinical recognition of sepsis can be challenging. With the advancement of machine learning, promising real-time models to predict sepsis have emerged. We assessed their performance by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase.com and Scopus. Studies targeting sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock in any hospital setting were eligible for inclusion. The index test was any supervised machine learning model for real-time prediction of these conditions. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, with a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist to evaluate risk of bias. Models with a reported area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) metric were meta-analyzed to identify strongest contributors to model performance.ResultsAfter screening, a total of 28 papers were eligible for synthesis, from which 130 models were extracted. The majority of papers were developed in the intensive care unit (ICU, n = 15; 54%), followed by hospital wards (n = 7; 25%), the emergency department (ED, n = 4; 14%) and all of these settings (n = 2; 7%). For the prediction of sepsis, diagnostic test accuracy assessed by the AUROC ranged from 0.68-0.99 in the ICU, to 0.96-0.98 in-hospital and 0.87 to 0.97 in the ED. Varying sepsis definitions limit pooling of the performance across studies. Only three papers clinically implemented models with mixed results. In the multivariate analysis, temperature, lab values, and model type contributed most to model performance.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis show that on retrospective data, individual machine learning models can accurately predict sepsis onset ahead of time. Although they present alternatives to traditional scoring systems, between-study heterogeneity limits the assessment of pooled results. Systematic reporting and clinical implementation studies are needed to bridge the gap between bytes and bedside.
| S-EPMC7067741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile many studies have consistently found incomplete reporting of regression-based prediction model studies, evidence is lacking for machine learning-based prediction model studies. We aim to systematically review the adherence of Machine Learning (ML)-based prediction model studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement.MethodsWe included articles reporting on development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) developed using supervised ML for individualized predictions across all medical fields. We searched PubMed from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019. Data extraction was performed using the 22-item checklist for reporting of prediction model studies ( www.TRIPOD-statement.org ). We measured the overall adherence per article and per TRIPOD item.ResultsOur search identified 24,814 articles, of which 152 articles were included: 94 (61.8%) prognostic and 58 (38.2%) diagnostic prediction model studies. Overall, articles adhered to a median of 38.7% (IQR 31.0-46.4%) of TRIPOD items. No article fully adhered to complete reporting of the abstract and very few reported the flow of participants (3.9%, 95% CI 1.8 to 8.3), appropriate title (4.6%, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.2), blinding of predictors (4.6%, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.2), model specification (5.2%, 95% CI 2.4 to 10.8), and model's predictive performance (5.9%, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.9). There was often complete reporting of source of data (98.0%, 95% CI 94.4 to 99.3) and interpretation of the results (94.7%, 95% CI 90.0 to 97.3).ConclusionSimilar to prediction model studies developed using conventional regression-based techniques, the completeness of reporting is poor. Essential information to decide to use the model (i.e. model specification and its performance) is rarely reported. However, some items and sub-items of TRIPOD might be less suitable for ML-based prediction model studies and thus, TRIPOD requires extensions. Overall, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting quality and usability of research to avoid research waste.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, CRD42019161764.
| S-EPMC8759172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Early detection of pediatric severe sepsis is necessary in order to optimize effective treatment, and new methods are needed to facilitate this early detection. Objective: Can a machine-learning based prediction algorithm using electronic healthcare record (EHR) data predict severe sepsis onset in pediatric populations? Methods: EHR data were collected from a retrospective set of de-identified pediatric inpatient and emergency encounters for patients between 2-17 years of age, drawn from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center, with encounter dates between June 2011 and March 2016. Results: Pediatric patients (n = 9,486) were identified and 101 (1.06%) were labeled with severe sepsis following the pediatric severe sepsis definition of Goldstein et al. (1). In 4-fold cross-validation evaluations, the machine learning algorithm achieved an AUROC of 0.916 for discrimination between severe sepsis and control pediatric patients at the time of onset and AUROC of 0.718 at 4 h before onset. The prediction algorithm significantly outperformed the Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction score (PELOD-2) (p < 0.05) and pediatric Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) (p < 0.05) in the prediction of severe sepsis 4 h before onset using cross-validation and pairwise t-tests. Conclusion: This machine learning algorithm has the potential to deliver high-performance severe sepsis detection and prediction through automated monitoring of EHR data for pediatric inpatients, which may enable earlier sepsis recognition and treatment initiation.
| S-EPMC6798083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the methodological quality of studies on prediction models developed using machine learning techniques across all medical specialties.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019.Eligibility criteriaArticles reporting on the development, with or without external validation, of a multivariable prediction model (diagnostic or prognostic) developed using supervised machine learning for individualised predictions. No restrictions applied for study design, data source, or predicted patient related health outcomes.Review methodsMethodological quality of the studies was determined and risk of bias evaluated using the prediction risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). This tool contains 21 signalling questions tailored to identify potential biases in four domains. Risk of bias was measured for each domain (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis) and each study (overall).Results152 studies were included: 58 (38%) included a diagnostic prediction model and 94 (62%) a prognostic prediction model. PROBAST was applied to 152 developed models and 19 external validations. Of these 171 analyses, 148 (87%, 95% confidence interval 81% to 91%) were rated at high risk of bias. The analysis domain was most frequently rated at high risk of bias. Of the 152 models, 85 (56%, 48% to 64%) were developed with an inadequate number of events per candidate predictor, 62 handled missing data inadequately (41%, 33% to 49%), and 59 assessed overfitting improperly (39%, 31% to 47%). Most models used appropriate data sources to develop (73%, 66% to 79%) and externally validate the machine learning based prediction models (74%, 51% to 88%). Information about blinding of outcome and blinding of predictors was, however, absent in 60 (40%, 32% to 47%) and 79 (52%, 44% to 60%) of the developed models, respectively.ConclusionMost studies on machine learning based prediction models show poor methodological quality and are at high risk of bias. Factors contributing to risk of bias include small study size, poor handling of missing data, and failure to deal with overfitting. Efforts to improve the design, conduct, reporting, and validation of such studies are necessary to boost the application of machine learning based prediction models in clinical practice.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019161764.
| S-EPMC8527348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purpose - Advancements in software and hardware have enabled the rise of clinical prediction models based on machine learning (ML) in orthopedic surgery. Given their growing popularity and their likely implementation in clinical practice we evaluated which outcomes these new models have focused on and what methodologies are being employed.Material and methods - We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published up to June 18, 2020. Studies reporting on non-ML prediction models or non-orthopedic outcomes were excluded. After screening 7,138 studies, 59 studies reporting on 77 prediction models were included. We extracted data regarding outcome, study design, and reported performance metrics.Results - Of the 77 identified ML prediction models the most commonly reported outcome domain was medical management (17/77). Spinal surgery was the most commonly involved orthopedic subspecialty (28/77). The most frequently employed algorithm was neural networks (42/77). Median size of datasets was 5,507 (IQR 635-26,364). The median area under the curve (AUC) was 0.80 (IQR 0.73-0.86). Calibration was reported for 26 of the models and 14 provided decision-curve analysis.Interpretation - ML prediction models have been developed for a wide variety of topics in orthopedics. Topics regarding medical management were the most commonly studied. Heterogeneity between studies is based on study size, algorithm, and time-point of outcome. Calibration and decision-curve analysis were generally poorly reported.
| S-EPMC8519550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to identify existing hypertension risk prediction models developed using traditional regression-based or machine learning approaches and compare their predictive performance.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and the grey literature for studies predicting the risk of hypertension among the general adult population. Summary statistics from the individual studies were the C-statistic, and a random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled estimates. The predictive performance of pooled estimates was compared between traditional regression-based models and machine learning-based models. The potential sources of heterogeneity were assessed using meta-regression, and study quality was assessed using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) checklist.ResultsOf 14,778 articles, 52 articles were selected for systematic review and 32 for meta-analysis. The overall pooled C-statistics was 0.75 [0.73-0.77] for the traditional regression-based models and 0.76 [0.72-0.79] for the machine learning-based models. High heterogeneity in C-statistic was observed. The age (p = 0.011), and sex (p = 0.044) of the participants and the number of risk factors considered in the model (p = 0.001) were identified as a source of heterogeneity in traditional regression-based models.ConclusionWe attempted to provide a comprehensive evaluation of hypertension risk prediction models. Many models with acceptable-to-good predictive performance were identified. Only a few models were externally validated, and the risk of bias and applicability was a concern in many studies. Overall discrimination was similar between models derived from traditional regression analysis and machine learning methods. More external validation and impact studies to implement the hypertension risk prediction model in clinical practice are required.
| S-EPMC8989291 | biostudies-literature