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
[21]   Monitoring performance of clinical artificial intelligence: a scoping review protocol [J].
Andersen, Eline Sandvig ;
Birk-Korch, Johan Baden ;
Rottger, Richard ;
Brasen, Claus Lohman ;
Brandslund, Ivan ;
Madsen, Jonna Skov .
JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2024, 22 (03) :453-460
[22]   Clinical prediction models for contact brachytherapy in managing rectal cancers: A scoping review [J].
Haq, Muneeb U. ;
Hughes, David M. ;
Myint, Arthur S. ;
Duckworth, Carrie ;
Pritchard, David M. ;
Bonnett, Laura J. .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2024, 194 :S189-S193
[23]   Clinical prediction models in children that use repeated measurements with time-varying covariates: a scoping review [J].
Fung, Alastair ;
Loutet, Miranda ;
Roth, Daniel E. ;
Wong, Elliott ;
Gill, Peter J. ;
Morris, Shaun K. ;
Beyene, Joseph .
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS, 2024, 24 (05) :728-740
[24]   Utilities of Artificial Intelligence in Poverty Prediction: A Review [J].
Usmanova, Aziza ;
Aziz, Ahmed ;
Rakhmonov, Dilshodjon ;
Osamy, Walid .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (21)
[25]   Inpatient Fall Prediction Models: A Scoping Review [J].
Parsons, Rex ;
Blythe, Robin D. ;
Cramb, Susanna M. ;
McPhail, Steven M. .
GERONTOLOGY, 2023, 69 (01) :14-29
[26]   Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models: A Scoping Review [J].
Sajeev, Shelda ;
Maeder, Anthony .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE AUSTRALASIAN COMPUTER SCIENCE WEEK MULTICONFERENCE (ACSW 2019), 2019,
[27]   Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Cardiology: A Scoping Review [J].
Sethi, Yashendra ;
Patel, Neil ;
Kaka, Nirja ;
Desai, Ami ;
Kaiwan, Oroshay ;
Sheth, Mili ;
Sharma, Rupal ;
Huang, Helen ;
Chopra, Hitesh ;
Khandaker, Mayeen Uddin ;
Lashin, Maha M. A. ;
Hamd, Zuhal Y. Y. ;
Bin Emran, Talha .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (23)
[28]   Artificial intelligence in emergency medicine: A scoping review [J].
Kirubarajan, Abirami ;
Taher, Ahmed ;
Khan, Shawn ;
Masood, Sameer .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OPEN, 2020, 1 (06) :1691-1702
[29]   Prediction models of diabetes complications: a scoping review [J].
Ndjaboue, Ruth ;
Ngueta, Gerard ;
Rochefort-Brihay, Charlotte ;
Delorme, Sasha ;
Guay, Daniel ;
Ivers, Noah ;
Shah, Baiju R. ;
Straus, Sharon E. ;
Yu, Catherine ;
Comeau, Sandrine ;
Farhat, Imen ;
Racine, Charles ;
Drescher, Olivia ;
Witteman, Holly O. .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2022, 76 (10) :896-904
[30]   Artificial intelligence models in prediction of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review [J].
Nazar, Wojciech ;
Szymanowicz, Stanislaw ;
Nazar, Krzysztof ;
Kaufmann, Damian ;
Wabich, Elzbieta ;
Braun-Dullaeus, Ruediger ;
Danilowicz-Szymanowicz, Ludmila .
HEART FAILURE REVIEWS, 2024, 29 (01) :133-150