Accuracy of machine learning in predicting outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review.

AsiaIntervention Pub Date : 2024-09-27 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.4244/AIJ-D-23-00023
Caitlin Fern Wee, Claire Jing-Wen Tan, Chun En Yau, Yao Hao Teo, Rachel Go, Yao Neng Teo, Benjamin Kye Jyn, Nicholas L Syn, Hui-Wen Sim, Jason Z Chen, Raymond C C Wong, James W Yip, Huay-Cheem Tan, Tiong-Cheng Yeo, Ping Chai, Tony Y W Li, Wesley L Yeung, Andie H Djohan, Ching-Hui Sia
{"title":"Accuracy of machine learning in predicting outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review.","authors":"Caitlin Fern Wee, Claire Jing-Wen Tan, Chun En Yau, Yao Hao Teo, Rachel Go, Yao Neng Teo, Benjamin Kye Jyn, Nicholas L Syn, Hui-Wen Sim, Jason Z Chen, Raymond C C Wong, James W Yip, Huay-Cheem Tan, Tiong-Cheng Yeo, Ping Chai, Tony Y W Li, Wesley L Yeung, Andie H Djohan, Ching-Hui Sia","doi":"10.4244/AIJ-D-23-00023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent studies have shown potential in introducing machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to critically appraise current ML models' effectiveness as clinical tools to predict outcomes post-PCI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches of four databases were conducted for articles published from the database inception date to 29 May 2021. Studies using ML to predict outcomes post-PCI were included. For individual post-PCI outcomes, measures of diagnostic accuracy were extracted. An adapted checklist comprising existing frameworks for new risk markers, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic tools and ML was used to critically appraise the included studies along the stages of the translational pathway: development, validation, and impact. Quality of training data and methods of dealing with missing data were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve cohorts from 11 studies were included with a total of 4,943,425 patients. ML models performed with high diagnostic accuracy. However, there are concerns over the development of the ML models. Methods of dealing with missing data were problematic. Four studies did not discuss how missing data were handled. One study removed patients if any of the predictor variable data points were missing. Moreover, at the validation stage, only three studies externally validated the models presented. There could be concerns over the applicability of these models. None of the studies discussed the cost-effectiveness of implementing the models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML models show promise as a useful clinical adjunct to traditional risk stratification scores in predicting outcomes post-PCI. However, significant challenges need to be addressed before ML can be integrated into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":72310,"journal":{"name":"AsiaIntervention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11413637/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AsiaIntervention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4244/AIJ-D-23-00023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recent studies have shown potential in introducing machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Aims: We aimed to critically appraise current ML models' effectiveness as clinical tools to predict outcomes post-PCI.

Methods: Searches of four databases were conducted for articles published from the database inception date to 29 May 2021. Studies using ML to predict outcomes post-PCI were included. For individual post-PCI outcomes, measures of diagnostic accuracy were extracted. An adapted checklist comprising existing frameworks for new risk markers, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic tools and ML was used to critically appraise the included studies along the stages of the translational pathway: development, validation, and impact. Quality of training data and methods of dealing with missing data were evaluated.

Results: Twelve cohorts from 11 studies were included with a total of 4,943,425 patients. ML models performed with high diagnostic accuracy. However, there are concerns over the development of the ML models. Methods of dealing with missing data were problematic. Four studies did not discuss how missing data were handled. One study removed patients if any of the predictor variable data points were missing. Moreover, at the validation stage, only three studies externally validated the models presented. There could be concerns over the applicability of these models. None of the studies discussed the cost-effectiveness of implementing the models.

Conclusions: ML models show promise as a useful clinical adjunct to traditional risk stratification scores in predicting outcomes post-PCI. However, significant challenges need to be addressed before ML can be integrated into clinical practice.

机器学习在预测经皮冠状动脉介入术后结果方面的准确性:系统综述。
背景:最近的研究表明,采用机器学习(ML)算法预测经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后的预后具有潜力。目的:我们旨在对目前的 ML 模型作为预测 PCI 后预后的临床工具的有效性进行严格评估:我们检索了四个数据库中从数据库建立之日起至 2021 年 5 月 29 日期间发表的文章。纳入了使用ML预测PCI术后结果的研究。对于PCI后的单个结果,提取了诊断准确性的测量值。我们使用了一份由新风险标记物、诊断准确性、预后工具和 ML 的现有框架组成的改编核对表,按照转化途径的各个阶段(开发、验证和影响)对纳入的研究进行批判性评估。对训练数据的质量和处理缺失数据的方法进行了评估:结果:共纳入了 11 项研究的 12 个队列,共计 4 943 425 名患者。ML 模型的诊断准确率很高。然而,ML 模型的开发还存在一些问题。处理缺失数据的方法存在问题。有四项研究没有讨论如何处理缺失数据。一项研究将任何预测变量数据点缺失的患者剔除。此外,在验证阶段,只有三项研究从外部验证了所提出的模型。这些模型的适用性可能令人担忧。没有一项研究讨论了实施模型的成本效益:ML模型有望作为传统风险分层评分的临床辅助工具,预测PCI术后的预后。然而,在将 ML 纳入临床实践之前,还需要解决一些重大挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信