Dataset Information

Machine learning for understanding and predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes in premature infants: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Machine learning has been attracting increasing attention for use in healthcare applications, including neonatal medicine. One application for this tool is in understanding and predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. In this study, we have carried out a systematic review to identify findings and challenges to date.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Four databases were searched in February 2022, with articles then screened in a non-blinded manner by two authors.

Results

The literature search returned 278 studies, with 11 meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Convolutional neural networks were the most common machine learning approach, with most studies seeking to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes from images and connectomes describing brain structure and function. Studies to date also sought to identify features predictive of outcomes; however, results varied greatly.

Conclusions

Initial studies in this field have achieved promising results; however, many machine learning techniques remain to be explored, and the consensus is yet to be reached on which clinical and brain features are most predictive of neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Impact

This systematic review looks at the question of whether machine learning can be used to predict and understand neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. Our review finds that promising initial works have been conducted in this field, but many challenges and opportunities remain. Quality assessment of relevant articles is conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This work identifies challenges that remain and suggests several key directions for future research. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first systematic review to explore this topic.

SUBMITTER: Baker S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9153218 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionApproximately 7,000 newborns die every day, accounting for almost half of child deaths under 5 years of age. Deciphering which neonates are at increased risk for mortality can have an important global impact. As such, integrating high computational technology (e.g., artificial intelligence [AI]) may help identify the early and potentially modifiable predictors of neonatal mortality. Therefore, the objective of this study was to collate, critically appraise, and analyze neonatal prediction studies that included AI.MethodsA literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane, OVID, and Google Scholar. We included studies that used AI (e.g., machine learning (ML) and deep learning) to formulate prediction models for neonatal death. We excluded small studies (n < 500 individuals) and studies using only antenatal factors to predict mortality. Two independent investigators screened all articles for inclusion. The data collection consisted of study design, number of models, features used per model, feature importance, internal and/or external validation, and calibration analysis. Our primary outcome was the average area under the receiving characteristic curve (AUC) or sensitivity and specificity for all models included in each study.ResultsOf 434 articles, 11 studies were included. The total number of participants was 1.26 M with gestational ages ranging from 22 weeks to term. Number of features ranged from 3 to 66 with timing of prediction as early as 5 min of life to a maximum of 7 days of age. The average number of models per study was 4, with neural network, random forest, and logistic regression comprising the most used models (58.3%). Five studies (45.5%) reported calibration plots and 2 (18.2%) conducted external validation. Eight studies reported results by AUC and 5 studies reported the sensitivity and specificity. The AUC varied from 58.3% to 97.0%. The mean sensitivities ranged from 63% to 80% and specificities from 78% to 99%. The best overall model was linear discriminant analysis, but it also had a high number of features (n = 17).Discussion/conclusionML models can accurately predict death in neonates. This analysis demonstrates the most commonly used predictors and metrics for AI prediction models for neonatal mortality. Future studies should focus on external validation, calibration, as well as deployment of applications that can be readily accessible to health-care providers.

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.