{"title":"Machine Learning for Prediction of Postoperative Delirium in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Hao Chen, Dongdong Yu, Jing Zhang, Jianli Li","doi":"10.1016/j.clinthera.2024.09.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of machine learning (ML) models in predicting postoperative delirium (POD) and to provide guidance for clinical application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to April 29, 2024. Studies reported ML models for predicting POD in adult patients were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis - AI (TRIPOD-AI) and Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) tools. Meta-analysis with the area under the curve (AUC) was performed using MedCalc software.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 23 studies were included after screening. Age (n = 20, 86.95%) and Random Forest (RF) (n = 24, 17.27%) were the most frequently used feature and ML algorithm, respectively. The meta-analysis showed an overall AUC of 0.792. The ensemble models (AUC = 0.805) showed better predictive performance than single models (AUC = 0.782). Additionally, considerable variations in AUC were found among different ML algorithms, with AdaBoost (AB) demonstrating good performance with AUC of 0.870. Notably, the generalizability of these models was uncertain due to limitations in external validation and bias assessment.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>The performance of ensemble models were higher than single models, and the AB algorithms demonstrated better performance, compared with other algorithms. However, further research was needed to enhance the generalizability and transparency of ML models.</p>","PeriodicalId":10699,"journal":{"name":"Clinical therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":"1069-1081"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2024.09.013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of machine learning (ML) models in predicting postoperative delirium (POD) and to provide guidance for clinical application.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to April 29, 2024. Studies reported ML models for predicting POD in adult patients were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis - AI (TRIPOD-AI) and Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) tools. Meta-analysis with the area under the curve (AUC) was performed using MedCalc software.
Findings: A total of 23 studies were included after screening. Age (n = 20, 86.95%) and Random Forest (RF) (n = 24, 17.27%) were the most frequently used feature and ML algorithm, respectively. The meta-analysis showed an overall AUC of 0.792. The ensemble models (AUC = 0.805) showed better predictive performance than single models (AUC = 0.782). Additionally, considerable variations in AUC were found among different ML algorithms, with AdaBoost (AB) demonstrating good performance with AUC of 0.870. Notably, the generalizability of these models was uncertain due to limitations in external validation and bias assessment.
Implications: The performance of ensemble models were higher than single models, and the AB algorithms demonstrated better performance, compared with other algorithms. However, further research was needed to enhance the generalizability and transparency of ML models.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Therapeutics provides peer-reviewed, rapid publication of recent developments in drug and other therapies as well as in diagnostics, pharmacoeconomics, health policy, treatment outcomes, and innovations in drug and biologics research. In addition Clinical Therapeutics features updates on specific topics collated by expert Topic Editors. Clinical Therapeutics is read by a large international audience of scientists and clinicians in a variety of research, academic, and clinical practice settings. Articles are indexed by all major biomedical abstracting databases.