Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review

被引:3
作者
Salama, Vivian [1 ]
Godinich, Brandon [1 ,2 ]
Geng, Yimin [3 ]
Humbert-Vidan, Laia [1 ]
Maule, Laura [1 ]
Wahid, Kareem A. [1 ]
Naser, Mohamed A. [1 ]
He, Renjie [1 ]
Mohamed, Abdallah S. R. [1 ]
Fuller, Clifton D. [1 ]
Moreno, Amy C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, 7007 Bertner Ave, Houston, TX 77532 USA
[2] Texas Tech Hlth Sci Ctr, Paul L Foster Sch Med, Dept Med Educ, El Paso, TX USA
[3] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Res Med Lib, Houston, TX USA
关键词
Cancer pain; cancer pain management; machine learning; artificial intelligence; SUPPORT COMPUTER-PROGRAM; PERSISTENT PAIN; PREDICTION MODEL; RISK; APPLICABILITY; PROBAST; BIAS; TOOL;
D O I
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.07.025
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Objectives. Pain is a challenging multifaceted symptom reported by most cancer patients. This systematic review aims to explore applications of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) in predicting pain-related outcomes and pain management in cancer. Methods. A comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases was conducted using terms: " Cancer, " " Pain, " " Pain Management," " Analgesics, " " Arti fi cial Intelligence," " Machine Learning," and " Neural Networks" published up to September 7, 2023. AI/ML models, their validation and performance were summarized. Quality assessment was conducted using PROBAST risk-of-bias andadherence to TRIPOD guidelines. Results. Forty four studies from 2006 to 2023 were included. Nineteen studies used AI/ML for classifying pain after cancer therapy [median AUC 0.80 (range 0.76-0.94)]. Eighteen studies focused on cancer pain research [median AUC 0.86 (range 0.50-0.99)], and 7 focused on applying AI/ML for cancer pain management, [median AUC 0.71 (range 0.47-0.89)]. Median AUC (0.77) of models across all studies. Random forest models demonstrated the highest performance (median AUC 0.81), lasso models had the highest median sensitivity (1), while Support Vector Machine had the highest median specificity (0.74). Overall adherence to TRIPOD guidelines was 70.7%. Overall, high risk-of-bias (77.3%), lack of external validation (14%) and clinical application (23%) was detected. Reporting of model calibration was also missing (5%). Conclusion. Implementation of AI/ML tools promises significant advances in the classification, risk stratification, and management decisions for cancer pain. Further research focusing on quality improvement, model calibration, rigorous external clinical validation in real healthcare settings is imperative for ensuring its practical and reliable application in clinical practice. J Pain Symptom Manage 2024;68:e462-e490. (c) 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
引用
收藏
页码:e462 / e490
页数:29
相关论文
共 66 条
  • [61] Predicting chronic pain in postoperative breast cancer patients with multiple machine learning and deep learning models
    Wang, Ying
    Zhu, Yu
    Xue, Qiong
    Ji, Muhuo
    Tong, Jianhua
    Yang, Jian-Jun
    Zhou, Cheng-Mao
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2021, 74
  • [62] Wang ZY, 2021, PAIN THER, V10, P619, DOI 10.1007/s40122-021-00251-2
  • [63] PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies
    Wolff, Robert F.
    Moons, Karel G. M.
    Riley, Richard D.
    Whiting, Penny F.
    Westwood, Marie
    Collins, Gary S.
    Reitsma, Johannes B.
    Kleijnen, Jos
    Mallett, Sue
    Altman, Doug
    Bossuyt, Patrick
    Cook, Nancy R.
    D'Amico, Gennaro
    Debray, Thomas P. A.
    Deeks, Jon
    de Groot, Joris
    di Angelantonio, Emanuele
    Fahey, Tom
    Harrell, Frank
    Hayden, Jill A.
    Heymans, Martijn W.
    Hooft, Lotty
    Hyde, Chris
    Ioannidis, John
    Iorio, Alfonso
    Kaptoge, Stephen
    Knottnerus, Andre
    Leeflang, Mariska
    Nixon, Frances
    Perel, Pablo
    Phillips, Bob
    Raatz, Heike
    Riemsma, Rob
    Rovers, Maroeska
    Rutjes, Anne W. S.
    Sauerbrei, Willi
    Sauerland, Stefan
    Scheibler, Fueloep
    Scholten, Rob
    Schuit, Ewoud
    Steyerberg, Ewout
    Tan, Toni
    ter Riet, Gerben
    van der Windt, Danielle
    Vergouwe, Yvonne
    Vickers, Andrew
    Wood, Angela M.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2019, 170 (01) : 51 - +
  • [64] Identification of herbal categories active in pain disorder subtypes by machine learning help reveal novel molecular mechanisms of algesia
    Xu, Xue
    Yang, Kuo
    Zhang, Feilong
    Liu, Wenwen
    Wang, Yinyan
    Yu, Changying
    Wang, Junyao
    Zhang, Keke
    Zhang, Chao
    Nenadic, Goran
    Tao, Dacheng
    Zhou, Xuezhong
    Shang, Hongcai
    Chen, Jianxin
    [J]. PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 156
  • [65] Artificial neural networks for simultaneously predicting the risk of multiple co-occurring symptoms among patients with cancer
    Xuyi, Wenhui
    Seow, Hsien
    Sutradhar, Rinku
    [J]. CANCER MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (03): : 989 - 998
  • [66] External validation of AI models in health should be replaced with recurring local validation
    Youssef, Alexey
    Pencina, Michael
    Thakur, Anshul
    Zhu, Tingting
    Clifton, David
    Shah, Nigam H.
    [J]. NATURE MEDICINE, 2023, 29 (11) : 2686 - 2687