Updating methods for artificial intelligenceebased clinical prediction models: a scoping review

被引:0
作者
Meijerink, Lotta M. [1 ]
Dunias, Zoe S. [1 ]
Leeuwenberg, Artuur M. [1 ]
de Hond, Anne A. H. [1 ]
Jenkins, David A. [2 ]
Martin, Glen P. [2 ]
Sperrin, Matthew [2 ]
Peek, Niels [3 ]
Spijker, Rene [1 ]
Hooft, Lotty [1 ]
Moons, Karel G. M. [1 ]
van Smeden, Maarten [1 ]
Schuit, Ewoud [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht, Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Julius Ctr Hlth Sci & Primary Care, Univ Weg 100, NL-3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Manchester, Div Informat Imaging & Data Sci, Manchester, England
[3] Univ Cambridge, Healthcare Improvement Studies Inst, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Cambridge, England
关键词
Artificial intelligence; Machine learning; Model updating; Transfer learning; Prediction models; Knowledge transfer; VALIDATION; CLASSIFICATION; PERFORMANCE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111636
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
Objectives: To give an overview of methods for updating artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical prediction models based on new data. Study Design and Setting: We comprehensively searched Scopus and Embase up to August 2022 for articles that addressed developments, descriptions, or evaluations of prediction model updating methods. We specifically focused on articles in the medical domain involving AI-based prediction models that were updated based on new data, excluding regression-based updating methods as these have been extensively discussed elsewhere. We categorized and described the identified methods used to update the AI-based prediction model as well as the use cases in which they were used. Results: We included 78 articles. The majority of the included articles discussed updating for neural network methods (93.6%) with medical images as input data (65.4%). In many articles (51.3%) existing, pretrained models for broad tasks were updated to perform specialized clinical tasks. Other common reasons for model updating were to address changes in the data over time and cross-center differences; however, more unique use cases were also identified, such as updating a model from a broad population to a specific individual. We categorized the identified model updating methods into four categories: neural network-specific methods (described in 92.3% of the articles), ensemble-specific methods (2.5%), model-agnostic methods (9.0%), and other (1.3%). Variations of neural network-specific methods are further categorized based on the following: (1) the part of the original neural network that is kept, (2) whether and how the original neural network is extended with new parameters, and (3) to what extent the original neural network parameters are adjusted to the new data. The most frequently occurring method (n 5 30) involved selecting the first layer(s) of an existing neural network, appending new, randomly initialized layers, and then optimizing the entire neural network. Conclusion: We identified many ways to adjust or update AI-based prediction models based on new data, within a large variety of use cases. Updating methods for AI-based prediction models other than neural networks (eg, random forest) appear to be underexplored in clinical prediction research. (c) 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Need to Prioritize Model-Updating Processes in Clinical Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models: Protocol for a Scoping Review
    Otokiti, Ahmed Umar
    Ozoude, Makuochukwu Maryann
    Williams, Karmen S.
    Sadiq-onilenla, Rasheedat A.
    Ojo, Soji Akin
    Wasarme, Leyla B.
    Walsh, Samantha
    Edomwande, Maxwell
    JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2023, 12
  • [2] A review of statistical updating methods for clinical prediction models
    Su, Ting-Li
    Jaki, Thomas
    Hickey, Graeme L.
    Buchan, Iain
    Sperrin, Matthew
    STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2018, 27 (01) : 185 - 197
  • [3] Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
    Binuya, M. A. E.
    Engelhardt, E. G.
    Schats, W.
    Schmidt, M. K.
    Steyerberg, E. W.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [4] Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Psychotic Disorders Using Artificial Intelligence Methods: A Scoping Review
    Tay, Jing Ling
    Htun, Kyawt Kyawt
    Sim, Kang
    BRAIN SCIENCES, 2024, 14 (09)
  • [5] Simple dichotomous updating methods improved the validity of polytomous prediction models
    Van Hoorde, Kirsten
    Vergouwe, Yvonne
    Timmerman, Dirk
    Van Huffel, Sabine
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Van Calster, Ben
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 66 (10) : 1158 - 1165
  • [6] Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
    M. A. E. Binuya
    E. G. Engelhardt
    W. Schats
    M. K. Schmidt
    E. W. Steyerberg
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22
  • [7] Navigating the machine learning pipeline: a scoping review of inpatient delirium prediction models
    Strating, Tom
    Hanjani, Leila Shafiee
    Tornvall, Ida
    Hubbard, Ruth
    Scott, Ian A.
    BMJ HEALTH & CARE INFORMATICS, 2023, 30 (01)
  • [8] Artificial Intelligence Methods and Models for Retro-Biosynthesis: A Scoping Review
    Gricourt, Guillaume
    Meyer, Philippe
    Duigou, Thomas
    Faulon, Jean-Loup
    ACS SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY, 2024, 13 (08): : 2276 - 2294
  • [9] Prediction models used in the progression of chronic kidney disease: A scoping review
    Lim, David K. E.
    Boyd, James H.
    Thomas, Elizabeth
    Chakera, Aron
    Tippaya, Sawitchaya
    Irish, Ashley
    Manuel, Justin
    Betts, Kim
    Robinson, Suzanne
    PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (07):
  • [10] A multiple-model generalisation of updating clinical prediction models
    Martin, Glen P.
    Mamas, Mamas A.
    Peek, Niels
    Buchan, Iain
    Sperrin, Matthew
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2018, 37 (08) : 1343 - 1358