Pablo D Suarez-Barcena, Alberto M Parra-Perez, Juan Martín-Lagos, Alvaro Gallego-Martinez, Jose A Lopez-Escámez, Patricia Perez-Carpena
{"title":"前庭偏头痛诊断中的机器学习模型和分类算法:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Pablo D Suarez-Barcena, Alberto M Parra-Perez, Juan Martín-Lagos, Alvaro Gallego-Martinez, Jose A Lopez-Escámez, Patricia Perez-Carpena","doi":"10.1111/head.14924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) algorithms in the diagnosis of vestibular migraine.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to the absence of defined biomarkers for diagnosing vestibular migraine (VM), it is valuable to determine which clinical, physical, and exploratory information is most crucial to diagnosing this disease. The use of artificial intelligence tools could streamline this process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched for records from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Observational (case-control and cohort) studies were included to assess the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to distinguish VM from other vestibular disorders. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-AI tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 articles were included in the systematic review, and 10 were eligible for meta-analysis. The main inputs included for the ML algorithms were anamnesis (medical history), physical examination, results from audiological and vestibular tests, and imaging. The global sensitivity was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.92, I<sup>2</sup> = 96%), while the global specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93, I<sup>2</sup> = 95%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 48.15 (95% CI 17.64-131.43, I<sup>2</sup> = 97%). Using the bivariate model, the area under the curve and for the summary receiver operating characteristic curve, using the 10 available studies, was 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-0.96).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Machine learning algorithms could be used as effective tools for the diagnosis process in VM. The use of models trained with three to four inputs yield the highest accuracy, compared to other strategies. However, the design and validation of these studies could be improved to ensure the reproducibility and generalizability of results.</p>","PeriodicalId":12844,"journal":{"name":"Headache","volume":" ","pages":"695-708"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine learning models and classification algorithms in the diagnosis of vestibular migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Pablo D Suarez-Barcena, Alberto M Parra-Perez, Juan Martín-Lagos, Alvaro Gallego-Martinez, Jose A Lopez-Escámez, Patricia Perez-Carpena\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/head.14924\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) algorithms in the diagnosis of vestibular migraine.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to the absence of defined biomarkers for diagnosing vestibular migraine (VM), it is valuable to determine which clinical, physical, and exploratory information is most crucial to diagnosing this disease. The use of artificial intelligence tools could streamline this process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched for records from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Observational (case-control and cohort) studies were included to assess the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to distinguish VM from other vestibular disorders. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-AI tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 articles were included in the systematic review, and 10 were eligible for meta-analysis. The main inputs included for the ML algorithms were anamnesis (medical history), physical examination, results from audiological and vestibular tests, and imaging. The global sensitivity was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.92, I<sup>2</sup> = 96%), while the global specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93, I<sup>2</sup> = 95%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 48.15 (95% CI 17.64-131.43, I<sup>2</sup> = 97%). Using the bivariate model, the area under the curve and for the summary receiver operating characteristic curve, using the 10 available studies, was 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-0.96).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Machine learning algorithms could be used as effective tools for the diagnosis process in VM. The use of models trained with three to four inputs yield the highest accuracy, compared to other strategies. However, the design and validation of these studies could be improved to ensure the reproducibility and generalizability of results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Headache\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"695-708\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Headache\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14924\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14924","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估机器学习(ML)算法在前庭偏头痛诊断中的有效性。背景:由于缺乏诊断前庭偏头痛(VM)的明确生物标志物,确定哪些临床、物理和探索性信息对诊断这种疾病最重要是有价值的。使用人工智能工具可以简化这一过程。方法:本系统评价遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南,检索PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science的记录。纳入观察性(病例对照和队列)研究,以评估人工智能(AI)区分VM与其他前庭疾病的能力。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估- ai工具评估偏倚风险和适用性问题。结果:系统评价共纳入14篇文章,其中10篇符合meta分析。ML算法的主要输入包括记忆(病史)、体格检查、听力学和前庭测试结果以及成像。总体敏感性为0.85(95%可信区间[CI] 0.73-0.92, I2 = 96%),总体特异性为0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93, I2 = 95%)。合并诊断优势比为48.15 (95% CI 17.64-131.43, I2 = 97%)。使用双变量模型,曲线下面积和综合受试者工作特征曲线,使用10项可用研究,为0.94 (95% CI 0.86-0.96)。结论:机器学习算法可作为VM诊断的有效工具。与其他策略相比,使用经过三到四个输入训练的模型产生了最高的准确性。然而,这些研究的设计和验证有待改进,以确保结果的可重复性和普遍性。
Machine learning models and classification algorithms in the diagnosis of vestibular migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) algorithms in the diagnosis of vestibular migraine.
Background: Due to the absence of defined biomarkers for diagnosing vestibular migraine (VM), it is valuable to determine which clinical, physical, and exploratory information is most crucial to diagnosing this disease. The use of artificial intelligence tools could streamline this process.
Methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched for records from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Observational (case-control and cohort) studies were included to assess the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to distinguish VM from other vestibular disorders. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-AI tool.
Results: A total of 14 articles were included in the systematic review, and 10 were eligible for meta-analysis. The main inputs included for the ML algorithms were anamnesis (medical history), physical examination, results from audiological and vestibular tests, and imaging. The global sensitivity was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.92, I2 = 96%), while the global specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93, I2 = 95%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 48.15 (95% CI 17.64-131.43, I2 = 97%). Using the bivariate model, the area under the curve and for the summary receiver operating characteristic curve, using the 10 available studies, was 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-0.96).
Conclusion: Machine learning algorithms could be used as effective tools for the diagnosis process in VM. The use of models trained with three to four inputs yield the highest accuracy, compared to other strategies. However, the design and validation of these studies could be improved to ensure the reproducibility and generalizability of results.
期刊介绍:
Headache publishes original articles on all aspects of head and face pain including communications on clinical and basic research, diagnosis and management, epidemiology, genetics, and pathophysiology of primary and secondary headaches, cranial neuralgias, and pains referred to the head and face. Monthly issues feature case reports, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, and news items regarding AHS plus medicolegal and socioeconomic aspects of head pain. This is the official journal of the American Headache Society.