Yuan Zhang , Huan Liu , Qingxia Huang , Wantong Qu , Yanyu Shi , Tianyang Zhang , Jing Li , Jinjin Chen , Yuqing Shi , Ruixue Deng , Ying Chen , Zepeng Zhang
{"title":"Predictive value of machine learning for in-hospital mortality risk in acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Yuan Zhang , Huan Liu , Qingxia Huang , Wantong Qu , Yanyu Shi , Tianyang Zhang , Jing Li , Jinjin Chen , Yuqing Shi , Ruixue Deng , Ying Chen , Zepeng Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.105875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Machine learning (ML) models have been constructed to predict the risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Due to diverse ML models and modeling variables, along with the significant imbalance in data, the predictive accuracy of these models remains controversial.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aimed to review the accuracy of ML in predicting in-hospital mortality risk in MI patients and to provide evidence-based advices for the development or updating of clinical tools.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched, up to June 4, 2024. PROBAST and ChAMAI checklist are utilized to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Since the included studies constructed models based on severely unbalanced datasets, subgroup analyses were conducted by the type of dataset (balanced data, unbalanced data, model type).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>This meta-analysis included 32 studies. In the validation set, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity of prediction models based on balanced data were 0.83 (95 % CI: 0.795–0.866), 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.79–0.84), and 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.78–0.86), respectively. In the validation set, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity of ML models based on imbalanced data were 0.815 (95 % CI: 0.789–0.842), 0.66 (95 % CI: 0.60–0.72), and 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.83–0.85), respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>ML models such as LR, SVM, and RF exhibit high sensitivity and specificity in predicting in-hospital mortality in MI patients. However, their sensitivity is not superior to well-established scoring tools. Mitigating the impact of imbalanced data on ML models remains challenging.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54950,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","volume":"198 ","pages":"Article 105875"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505625000929","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Machine learning (ML) models have been constructed to predict the risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Due to diverse ML models and modeling variables, along with the significant imbalance in data, the predictive accuracy of these models remains controversial.
Objective
This study aimed to review the accuracy of ML in predicting in-hospital mortality risk in MI patients and to provide evidence-based advices for the development or updating of clinical tools.
Methods
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched, up to June 4, 2024. PROBAST and ChAMAI checklist are utilized to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Since the included studies constructed models based on severely unbalanced datasets, subgroup analyses were conducted by the type of dataset (balanced data, unbalanced data, model type).
Results
This meta-analysis included 32 studies. In the validation set, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity of prediction models based on balanced data were 0.83 (95 % CI: 0.795–0.866), 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.79–0.84), and 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.78–0.86), respectively. In the validation set, the pooled C-index, sensitivity, and specificity of ML models based on imbalanced data were 0.815 (95 % CI: 0.789–0.842), 0.66 (95 % CI: 0.60–0.72), and 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.83–0.85), respectively.
Conclusions
ML models such as LR, SVM, and RF exhibit high sensitivity and specificity in predicting in-hospital mortality in MI patients. However, their sensitivity is not superior to well-established scoring tools. Mitigating the impact of imbalanced data on ML models remains challenging.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Medical Informatics provides an international medium for dissemination of original results and interpretative reviews concerning the field of medical informatics. The Journal emphasizes the evaluation of systems in healthcare settings.
The scope of journal covers:
Information systems, including national or international registration systems, hospital information systems, departmental and/or physician''s office systems, document handling systems, electronic medical record systems, standardization, systems integration etc.;
Computer-aided medical decision support systems using heuristic, algorithmic and/or statistical methods as exemplified in decision theory, protocol development, artificial intelligence, etc.
Educational computer based programs pertaining to medical informatics or medicine in general;
Organizational, economic, social, clinical impact, ethical and cost-benefit aspects of IT applications in health care.