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: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:AIMS:Most cigarette smokers want to quit smoking and more than half make an attempt every year, but less than 10% remain abstinent for at least 6 months. Evidence-based tobacco use treatment improves the likelihood of quitting, but more than two-thirds of individuals relapse when provided even the most robust treatments. Identifying for whom treatment is effective will improve the success of our treatments and perhaps identify strategies for improving current approaches. METHODS:Two cohorts (training: N = 90, validation: N = 71) of cigarette smokers enrolled in group cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Generalized estimating equations were used to identify baseline predictors of outcome, as defined by breath carbon monoxide and urine cotinine. Significant measures were entered as candidate variables to predict quit status. The resulting decision trees were used to predict cessation outcomes in a validation cohort. RESULTS:In the training cohort, the decision trees significantly improved on chance classification of smoking status following treatment and at 6-month follow-up. The first split of all decision trees, which was delay discounting, significantly improved on chance classification rates in both the training and validation cohort. Delay discounting emerged as the single best predictor of group CBT treatment response with an average baseline discount rate of ln(k) = -7.1, correctly predicting smoking status of 80% of participants at posttreatment and 81% of participants at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides a first step toward personalized care for smoking cessation though future work is needed to identify individuals that are likely to be successful in treatments beyond group CBT. IMPLICATIONS:This study provides a first step toward personalized care for smoking cessation. Using a novel machine-learning approach, baseline measures of clinical and executive functioning are used to predict smoking cessation outcomes following group CBT. A decision point is recommended for the single best predictor of treatment outcomes, delay discounting, to inform future research or clinical practice in an effort to better allocate patients to treatments that are likely to work.