Clinical Research Machine Learning Compared With Conventional Statistical Models for Predicting Myocardial Infarction Readmission and Mortality: A Systematic Review

被引:40
作者
Cho, Sung Min [1 ,8 ]
Austin, Peter C. [3 ,4 ,8 ]
Ross, Heather J. [1 ,2 ,8 ]
Abdel-Qadir, Husam [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,8 ]
Chicco, Davide [8 ]
Tomlinson, George [4 ,6 ,8 ]
Taheri, Cameron [1 ,8 ]
Foroutan, Farid [1 ]
Lawler, Patrick R. [1 ,2 ,7 ,8 ]
Billia, Filio [2 ,7 ,8 ]
Gramolini, Anthony [1 ,8 ]
Epelman, Slava [1 ,2 ,7 ,8 ]
Wang, Bo [2 ,8 ]
Lee, Douglas S. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Ted Rogers Ctr Heart Res, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Hlth Network, Peter Munk Cardiac Ctr, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Inst Clin Evaluat Sci, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Inst Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Womens Coll Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] Univ Hlth Network, Biostat Res Unit, Toronto, ON, Canada
[7] Toronto Gen Hosp Res Inst, Toronto, ON, Canada
[8] Univ Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; RISK PREDICTION; GLOBAL REGISTRY; SCORE;
D O I
10.1016/j.cjca.2021.02.020
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Machine learning (ML) methods are increasingly used in addition to conventional statistical modelling (CSM) for predicting readmission and mortality in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). However, the two approaches have not been systematically compared across studies of prognosis in patients with MI. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed the literature via Medline, EPub, Cochrane Central, Embase, Inspec, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included primary research articles published from January 2000 to March 2020, comparing ML and CSM for prognostication after MI. Results: Of 7,348 articles, 112 underwent full-text review, with the final set composed of 24 articles representing 374,365 patients. ML methods included artificial neural networks (n = 12 studies), random forests (n = 11), decision trees (n = 8), support vector machines (n = 8), and Bayesian techniques (n = 7). CSM included logistic regression (n = 19 studies), existing CSM-derived risk scores (n = 12), and Cox regression (n = 2). Thirteen of 19 studies examining mortality reported higher C-indexes with the use of ML compared with CSM. One study examined readmissions at 2 different time points, with C-indexes that were higher for ML than CSM. Across all studies, a total of 29 comparisons were performed, but the majority (n = 26, 90%) found small (< 0.05) absolute differences in the C-index between ML and CSM. With the use of a modified CHARMS checklist, sources of bias were identifiable in the majority of studies, and only 2 were externally validated. Conclusion: Although ML algorithms tended to have higher C-indexes than CSM for predicting death or readmission after MI, these studies exhibited threats to internal validity and were often unvalidated. Further comparisons are needed, with adherence to clinical quality standards for prognosis research.
引用
收藏
页码:1207 / 1214
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Machine Learning Prediction of Mortality and Hospitalization in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
    Angraal, Suveen
    Mortazavi, Bobak J.
    Gupta, Aakriti
    Khera, Rohan
    Ahmad, Tariq
    Desai, Nihar R.
    Jacoby, Daniel L.
    Masoudi, Frederick A.
    Spertus, John A.
    Krumholz, Harlan M.
    [J]. JACC-HEART FAILURE, 2020, 8 (01) : 12 - 21
  • [2] The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI - A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making
    Antman, EM
    Cohen, M
    Bernink, PJLM
    McCabe, CH
    Horacek, T
    Papuchis, G
    Mautner, B
    Corbalan, R
    Radley, D
    Braunwald, E
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 284 (07): : 835 - 842
  • [3] Big Data In Health Care: Using Analytics To Identify And Manage High-Risk And High-Cost Patients
    Bates, David W.
    Saria, Suchi
    Ohno-Machado, Lucila
    Shah, Anand
    Escobar, Gabriel
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2014, 33 (07) : 1123 - 1131
  • [4] Artificial intelligence in medicine: What is it doing for us today?
    Becker, Aliza
    [J]. HEALTH POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY, 2019, 8 (02) : 198 - 205
  • [5] Can machine learning improve mortality prediction following cardiac surgery?
    Benedetto, Umberto
    Sinha, Shubhra
    Lyon, Matt
    Dimagli, Arnaldo
    Gaunt, Tom R.
    Angelini, Gianni
    Sterne, Jonathan
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2020, 58 (06) : 1130 - 1136
  • [6] Prospective and External Evaluation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict In-Hospital Mortality of Adults at Time of Admission
    Brajer, Nathan
    Cozzi, Brian
    Gao, Michael
    Nichols, Marshall
    Revoir, Mike
    Balu, Suresh
    Futoma, Joseph
    Bae, Jonathan
    Setji, Noppon
    Hernandez, Adrian
    Sendak, Mark
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2020, 3 (02)
  • [7] Statistical modeling: The two cultures
    Breiman, L
    [J]. STATISTICAL SCIENCE, 2001, 16 (03) : 199 - 215
  • [8] Random forests for genomic data analysis
    Chen, Xi
    Ishwaran, Hemant
    [J]. GENOMICS, 2012, 99 (06) : 323 - 329
  • [9] Ten quick tips for machine learning in computational biology
    Chicco, Davide
    [J]. BIODATA MINING, 2017, 10
  • [10] A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models
    Christodoulou, Evangelia
    Ma, Jie
    Collins, Gary S.
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Verbakel, Jan Y.
    Van Calster, Ben
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 110 : 12 - 22