使用12导联心电图诊断急性冠状动脉综合征的机器学习:一项系统综述。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-04 DOI:10.1007/s43678-023-00572-5
Max Zworth, Hashim Kareemi, Suzanne Boroumand, Lindsey Sikora, Ian Stiell, Krishan Yadav
{"title":"使用12导联心电图诊断急性冠状动脉综合征的机器学习:一项系统综述。","authors":"Max Zworth, Hashim Kareemi, Suzanne Boroumand, Lindsey Sikora, Ian Stiell, Krishan Yadav","doi":"10.1007/s43678-023-00572-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Prompt diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is a critical task for emergency physicians. While computerized algorithms for ECG interpretation are limited in their accuracy, machine learning (ML) models have shown promise in several areas of clinical medicine. We performed a systematic review to compare the performance of ML-based ECG analysis to clinician or non-ML computerized ECG interpretation in the diagnosis of ACS for emergency department (ED) or prehospital patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases from inception to May 18, 2022. We included studies that compared ML algorithms to either clinicians or non-ML based software in their ability to diagnose ACS using only a 12-lead ECG, in adult patients experiencing chest pain or symptoms concerning for ACS in the ED or prehospital setting. We used QUADAS-2 for risk of bias assessment. Prospero registration CRD42021264765.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 1062 abstracts. 10 studies met inclusion criteria. Five model types were tested, including neural networks, random forest, and gradient boosting. In five studies with complete performance data, ML models were more sensitive but less specific (sensitivity range 0.59-0.98, specificity range 0.44-0.95) than clinicians (sensitivity range 0.22-0.93, specificity range 0.63-0.98) in diagnosing ACS. In four studies that reported it, ML models had better discrimination (area under ROC curve range 0.79-0.98) than clinicians (area under ROC curve 0.67-0.78). Heterogeneity in both methodology and reporting methods precluded a meta-analysis. Several studies had high risk of bias due to patient selection, lack of external validation, and unreliable reference standards for ACS diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML models have overall higher discrimination and sensitivity but lower specificity than clinicians and non-ML software in ECG interpretation for the diagnosis of ACS. ML-based ECG interpretation could potentially serve a role as a \"safety net\", alerting emergency care providers to a missed acute MI when it has not been diagnosed. More rigorous primary research is needed to definitively demonstrate the ability of ML to outperform clinicians at ECG interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":55286,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"818-827"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine learning for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome using a 12-lead ECG: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Max Zworth, Hashim Kareemi, Suzanne Boroumand, Lindsey Sikora, Ian Stiell, Krishan Yadav\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-023-00572-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Prompt diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is a critical task for emergency physicians. While computerized algorithms for ECG interpretation are limited in their accuracy, machine learning (ML) models have shown promise in several areas of clinical medicine. We performed a systematic review to compare the performance of ML-based ECG analysis to clinician or non-ML computerized ECG interpretation in the diagnosis of ACS for emergency department (ED) or prehospital patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases from inception to May 18, 2022. We included studies that compared ML algorithms to either clinicians or non-ML based software in their ability to diagnose ACS using only a 12-lead ECG, in adult patients experiencing chest pain or symptoms concerning for ACS in the ED or prehospital setting. We used QUADAS-2 for risk of bias assessment. Prospero registration CRD42021264765.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 1062 abstracts. 10 studies met inclusion criteria. Five model types were tested, including neural networks, random forest, and gradient boosting. In five studies with complete performance data, ML models were more sensitive but less specific (sensitivity range 0.59-0.98, specificity range 0.44-0.95) than clinicians (sensitivity range 0.22-0.93, specificity range 0.63-0.98) in diagnosing ACS. In four studies that reported it, ML models had better discrimination (area under ROC curve range 0.79-0.98) than clinicians (area under ROC curve 0.67-0.78). Heterogeneity in both methodology and reporting methods precluded a meta-analysis. Several studies had high risk of bias due to patient selection, lack of external validation, and unreliable reference standards for ACS diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML models have overall higher discrimination and sensitivity but lower specificity than clinicians and non-ML software in ECG interpretation for the diagnosis of ACS. ML-based ECG interpretation could potentially serve a role as a \\\"safety net\\\", alerting emergency care providers to a missed acute MI when it has not been diagnosed. More rigorous primary research is needed to definitively demonstrate the ability of ML to outperform clinicians at ECG interpretation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"818-827\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00572-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00572-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:使用12导联心电图(ECG)及时诊断急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)是急诊医生的一项重要任务。虽然心电图解释的计算机算法的准确性有限,但机器学习(ML)模型在临床医学的几个领域显示出了前景。我们进行了一项系统综述,以比较基于ML的心电图分析与临床医生或非ML计算机化心电图解释在急诊科(ED)或院前患者ACS诊断中的性能。方法:从开始到2022年5月18日,我们搜索了Medline、Embase、Cochrane Central和CINAHL数据库。我们纳入了一些研究,这些研究将ML算法与临床医生或非基于ML的软件在仅使用12导联心电图诊断ACS的能力方面进行了比较,这些患者在急诊室或院前环境中出现胸痛或ACS症状。我们使用QUADAS-2进行偏倚风险评估。Prospero注册CRD42021264765。结果:我们的搜索产生了1062篇摘要。10项研究符合纳入标准。测试了五种模型类型,包括神经网络、随机森林和梯度增强。在五项具有完整性能数据的研究中,ML模型在诊断ACS方面比临床医生(灵敏度范围0.22-0.93,特异度范围0.63-0.98)更敏感,但特异性较差(灵敏度范围0.59-0.98,特异性范围0.44-0.95)。在四项报告中,ML模型比临床医生(ROC曲线下面积0.67-0.78)具有更好的辨别力(ROC线下面积0.79-0.98)。方法和报告方法的异质性排除了荟萃分析。由于患者选择、缺乏外部验证和ACS诊断参考标准不可靠,一些研究存在较高的偏倚风险。结论:在诊断ACS的心电图解释中,ML模型总体上比临床医生和非ML软件具有更高的辨别力和敏感性,但特异性较低。基于ML的心电图解释可能起到“安全网”的作用,在未诊断出急性心肌梗死时提醒急救人员注意遗漏的急性心肌梗死。需要更严格的初步研究来明确证明ML在心电图解释方面优于临床医生的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Machine learning for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome using a 12-lead ECG: a systematic review.

Machine learning for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome using a 12-lead ECG: a systematic review.

Objectives: Prompt diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is a critical task for emergency physicians. While computerized algorithms for ECG interpretation are limited in their accuracy, machine learning (ML) models have shown promise in several areas of clinical medicine. We performed a systematic review to compare the performance of ML-based ECG analysis to clinician or non-ML computerized ECG interpretation in the diagnosis of ACS for emergency department (ED) or prehospital patients.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases from inception to May 18, 2022. We included studies that compared ML algorithms to either clinicians or non-ML based software in their ability to diagnose ACS using only a 12-lead ECG, in adult patients experiencing chest pain or symptoms concerning for ACS in the ED or prehospital setting. We used QUADAS-2 for risk of bias assessment. Prospero registration CRD42021264765.

Results: Our search yielded 1062 abstracts. 10 studies met inclusion criteria. Five model types were tested, including neural networks, random forest, and gradient boosting. In five studies with complete performance data, ML models were more sensitive but less specific (sensitivity range 0.59-0.98, specificity range 0.44-0.95) than clinicians (sensitivity range 0.22-0.93, specificity range 0.63-0.98) in diagnosing ACS. In four studies that reported it, ML models had better discrimination (area under ROC curve range 0.79-0.98) than clinicians (area under ROC curve 0.67-0.78). Heterogeneity in both methodology and reporting methods precluded a meta-analysis. Several studies had high risk of bias due to patient selection, lack of external validation, and unreliable reference standards for ACS diagnosis.

Conclusions: ML models have overall higher discrimination and sensitivity but lower specificity than clinicians and non-ML software in ECG interpretation for the diagnosis of ACS. ML-based ECG interpretation could potentially serve a role as a "safety net", alerting emergency care providers to a missed acute MI when it has not been diagnosed. More rigorous primary research is needed to definitively demonstrate the ability of ML to outperform clinicians at ECG interpretation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
171
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CJEM is a peer-reviewed journal owned by CAEP. CJEM is published every 2 months (January, March, May, July, September and November). CJEM presents articles of interest to emergency care providers in rural, urban or academic settings. Publishing services are provided by the Canadian Medical Association.
×
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