Dataset Information

[Machine Learning vs. Statistical Model for Prediction Modelling: Application in Medical Imaging Research].

ABSTRACT: Clinical prediction models has been increasingly published in radiology research. In particular, as a radiomics research is being actively conducted, the prediction model is developed based on the traditional statistical model, as well as machine learning, to account for the high-dimensional data. In this review, we investigated the statistical and machine learning methods used in clinical prediction model research, and briefly summarized each analytical method for statistical model, machine learning, and statistical learning. Finally, we discussed several considerations for choosing the prediction modeling method.

SUBMITTER: Ryu L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9748465 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

[Machine Learning vs. Statistical Model for Prediction Modelling: Application in Medical Imaging Research].

Ryu Leeha L Han Kyunghwa K

Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 20221130 6

Clinical prediction models has been increasingly published in radiology research. In particular, as a radiomics research is being actively conducted, the prediction model is developed based on the traditional statistical model, as well as machine learning, to account for the high-dimensional data. In this review, we investigated the statistical and machine learning methods used in clinical prediction model research, and briefly summarized each analytical method for statistical model, machine lea ...[more]

PMID: 36545410

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the recent JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival relative to best supportive care alone as first-line maintenance therapy following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC). Discovering biomarkers using genomic profiling to understand potential patient heterogeneity is essential to help improve patient care with precision medicine. For the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, it is unclear which variable selection methods can most reliably identify biomarkers to inform patient care because the dataset is characterized by high collinearity and low signal. The aim of this paper was to evaluate available selection methods and their ability to discover prognostic and predictive biomarkers in patients with aUC receiving first-line maintenance therapy. A simulation study evaluated the performance of popular variable selection approaches for high-dimensional data, including penalized regression models, random survival forests, and Bayesian variable selection methods. For Bayesian variable selection methods, a modified Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) thresholding rule was proposed in addition to the traditional BIC thresholding rule. These methods were applied to the JAVELIN Bladder 100 dataset to investigate potential biomarkers associated with survival benefit. Results from the simulations demonstrated the strengths and limitations of the different methods. The variable selection methods demonstrated low false discovery rates under different conditions. However, their performance declined in the presence of high collinearity. Using the JAVELIN Bladder 100 data, we identified some potentially significant biomarkers across multiple models. Several lasso-related methods were able to identify potentially biologically meaningful variables in the trial. Some variable selection methods (such as stochastic search variable selection and random survival forest) may not be well suited to this type of data due to the presence of extreme collinearity and low signal. Future research should explore novel variable selection methods that may be more suitable for identifying prognostic and predictive biomarkers in this population.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02603432.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to review the performance of machine learning (ML) methods compared with conventional statistical models (CSMs) for predicting readmission and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and to present an approach to formally evaluate the quality of studies using ML algorithms for prediction modelling.Methods and resultsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EPUB, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, INSPEC, ACM Library, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included primary research articles published between January 2000 and July 2020 comparing ML and CSMs in mortality and readmission prognosis of initially hospitalized HF patients. Data were extracted and analysed by two independent reviewers. A modified CHARMS checklist was developed in consultation with ML and biostatistics experts for quality assessment and was utilized to evaluate studies for risk of bias. Of 4322 articles identified and screened by two independent reviewers, 172 were deemed eligible for a full-text review. The final set comprised 20 articles and 686 842 patients. ML methods included random forests (n = 11), decision trees (n = 5), regression trees (n = 3), support vector machines (n = 9), neural networks (n = 12), and Bayesian techniques (n = 3). CSMs included logistic regression (n = 16), Cox regression (n = 3), or Poisson regression (n = 3). In 15 studies, readmission was examined at multiple time points ranging from 30 to 180 day readmission, with the majority of studies (n = 12) presenting prediction models for 30 day readmission outcomes. Of a total of 21 time-point comparisons, ML-derived c-indices were higher than CSM-derived c-indices in 16 of the 21 comparisons. In seven studies, mortality was examined at 9 time points ranging from in-hospital mortality to 1 year survival; of these nine, seven reported higher c-indices using ML. Two of these seven studies reported survival analyses utilizing random survival forests in their ML prediction models. Both reported higher c-indices when using ML compared with CSMs. A limitation of studies using ML techniques was that the majority were not externally validated, and calibration was rarely assessed. In the only study that was externally validated in a separate dataset, ML was superior to CSMs (c-indices 0.913 vs. 0.835).ConclusionsML algorithms had better discrimination than CSMs in most studies aiming to predict risk of readmission and mortality in HF patients. Based on our review, there is a need for external validation of ML-based studies of prediction modelling. We suggest that ML-based studies should also be evaluated using clinical quality standards for prognosis research. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020134867.

Dataset Information

[Machine Learning vs. Statistical Model for Prediction Modelling: Application in Medical Imaging Research].

Publications

[Machine Learning vs. Statistical Model for Prediction Modelling: Application in Medical Imaging Research].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets