机器学习在风湿性关节炎治疗反应预测中的应用:系统综述:抗MDA5抗体阳性皮肌炎患者的血清尿酸

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY
Claudia Mendoza-Pinto , Marcial Sánchez-Tecuatl , Roberto Berra-Romani , Iván Daniel Maya-Castro , Ivet Etchegaray-Morales , Pamela Munguía-Realpozo , Maura Cárdenas-García , Francisco Javier Arellano-Avendaño , Mario García-Carrasco
{"title":"机器学习在风湿性关节炎治疗反应预测中的应用:系统综述:抗MDA5抗体阳性皮肌炎患者的血清尿酸","authors":"Claudia Mendoza-Pinto ,&nbsp;Marcial Sánchez-Tecuatl ,&nbsp;Roberto Berra-Romani ,&nbsp;Iván Daniel Maya-Castro ,&nbsp;Ivet Etchegaray-Morales ,&nbsp;Pamela Munguía-Realpozo ,&nbsp;Maura Cárdenas-García ,&nbsp;Francisco Javier Arellano-Avendaño ,&nbsp;Mario García-Carrasco","doi":"10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to investigate the current status and performance of machine learning (ML) approaches in providing reproducible treatment response predictions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement and the CHARMS checklist. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases for cohort studies that derived and/or validated ML models focused on predicting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment response. We extracted data and critically appraised studies based on the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 210 unduplicated records identified by the literature search, we retained 29 eligible studies. Of these studies, 10 developed a predictive model and reported a mean adherence to the TRIPOD guidelines of 45.6 % (95 % CI: 38.3–52.8 %). The remaining 19 studies not only developed a predictive model but also validated it externally, with a mean adherence of 42.9 % (95 % CI: 39.1–46.6 %). Most of the articles had an unclear risk of bias (41.4 %), followed by a high risk of bias, which was present in 37.9 %.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In recent years, ML methods have been increasingly used to predict treatment response in RA. Our critical appraisal revealed unclear and high risk of bias in most of the identified models, suggesting that researchers can do more to address the risk of bias and increase transparency, including the use of calibration measures and reporting methods for handling missing data.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>None.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21715,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049017224001410/pdfft?md5=8c5c0cc16bb161ec1cfa1a22e67d7aa7&pid=1-s2.0-S0049017224001410-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine learning in the prediction of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Mendoza-Pinto ,&nbsp;Marcial Sánchez-Tecuatl ,&nbsp;Roberto Berra-Romani ,&nbsp;Iván Daniel Maya-Castro ,&nbsp;Ivet Etchegaray-Morales ,&nbsp;Pamela Munguía-Realpozo ,&nbsp;Maura Cárdenas-García ,&nbsp;Francisco Javier Arellano-Avendaño ,&nbsp;Mario García-Carrasco\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152501\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to investigate the current status and performance of machine learning (ML) approaches in providing reproducible treatment response predictions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement and the CHARMS checklist. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases for cohort studies that derived and/or validated ML models focused on predicting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment response. We extracted data and critically appraised studies based on the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 210 unduplicated records identified by the literature search, we retained 29 eligible studies. Of these studies, 10 developed a predictive model and reported a mean adherence to the TRIPOD guidelines of 45.6 % (95 % CI: 38.3–52.8 %). The remaining 19 studies not only developed a predictive model but also validated it externally, with a mean adherence of 42.9 % (95 % CI: 39.1–46.6 %). Most of the articles had an unclear risk of bias (41.4 %), followed by a high risk of bias, which was present in 37.9 %.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In recent years, ML methods have been increasingly used to predict treatment response in RA. Our critical appraisal revealed unclear and high risk of bias in most of the identified models, suggesting that researchers can do more to address the risk of bias and increase transparency, including the use of calibration measures and reporting methods for handling missing data.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>None.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049017224001410/pdfft?md5=8c5c0cc16bb161ec1cfa1a22e67d7aa7&pid=1-s2.0-S0049017224001410-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049017224001410\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049017224001410","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在调查机器学习(ML)方法在提供可重复的治疗反应预测方面的现状和性能。本系统综述按照 PRISMA 声明和 CHARMS 核对表进行。我们在 PubMed、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、Scopus 和 EBSCO 数据库中检索了以预测治疗反应为重点推导和/或验证 ML 模型的队列研究。我们根据 "个人预后或诊断多变量预测模型透明报告"(TRIPOD)和 "预测模型偏倚风险评估工具"(PROBAST)指南提取数据并对研究进行严格评估。通过文献检索找到了 210 条不重复的记录,我们从中保留了 29 项符合条件的研究。在这些研究中,有 10 项研究开发了预测模型,并报告了对 TRIPOD 指南的平均遵循率为 45.6%(95% CI:38.3 - 52.8%)。其余 19 项研究不仅开发了预测模型,还从外部对其进行了验证,其平均遵循率为 42.9%(95% CI:39.1 - 46.6%)。大多数文章的偏倚风险不明确(41.4%),其次是高偏倚风险,占 37.9%。近年来,ML方法越来越多地被用于预测RA的治疗反应。我们的批判性评估显示,大多数已确定的模型存在不明确的偏倚风险和高偏倚风险,这表明研究人员可以采取更多措施来应对偏倚风险并提高透明度,包括使用校准措施和处理缺失数据的报告方法。
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 in the prediction of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review

Machine learning in the prediction of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review

Machine learning in the prediction of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the current status and performance of machine learning (ML) approaches in providing reproducible treatment response predictions.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement and the CHARMS checklist. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases for cohort studies that derived and/or validated ML models focused on predicting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment response. We extracted data and critically appraised studies based on the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) guidelines.

Results

From 210 unduplicated records identified by the literature search, we retained 29 eligible studies. Of these studies, 10 developed a predictive model and reported a mean adherence to the TRIPOD guidelines of 45.6 % (95 % CI: 38.3–52.8 %). The remaining 19 studies not only developed a predictive model but also validated it externally, with a mean adherence of 42.9 % (95 % CI: 39.1–46.6 %). Most of the articles had an unclear risk of bias (41.4 %), followed by a high risk of bias, which was present in 37.9 %.

Conclusions

In recent years, ML methods have been increasingly used to predict treatment response in RA. Our critical appraisal revealed unclear and high risk of bias in most of the identified models, suggesting that researchers can do more to address the risk of bias and increase transparency, including the use of calibration measures and reporting methods for handling missing data.

Funding

None.

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
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
176
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism provides access to the highest-quality clinical, therapeutic and translational research about arthritis, rheumatology and musculoskeletal disorders that affect the joints and connective tissue. Each bimonthly issue includes articles giving you the latest diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical and translational research studies. Read this journal for the latest groundbreaking research and to gain insights from scientists and clinicians on the management and treatment of musculoskeletal and autoimmune rheumatologic diseases. The journal is of interest to rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, internal medicine physicians, immunologists and specialists in bone and mineral metabolism.
×
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