Zuzanna Wójcik, Vania Dimitrova, Lorraine Warrington, Galina Velikova, Kate Absolom
{"title":"使用人工智能从患者报告的结果测量中预测患者结果:范围审查。","authors":"Zuzanna Wójcik, Vania Dimitrova, Lorraine Warrington, Galina Velikova, Kate Absolom","doi":"10.1186/s12955-025-02365-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This scoping review aims to identify and summarise artificial intelligence (AI) methods applied to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for prediction of patient outcomes, such as survival, quality of life, or treatment decisions.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>AI models have been successfully applied to predict outcomes for patients using mainly clinically focused data. However, systematic guidance for utilising AI and PROMs for patient outcome predictions is lacking. This leads to inconsistency of model development and evaluation, limited practical implications, and poor translation to clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This review was conducted across Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM, Digital Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase databases. Adapted search terms identified published research using AI models with patient-reported data for outcome predictions. Papers using PROMs data as input variables in AI models for prediction of patient outcomes were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three thousand and seventy-seven records were screened, 94 of which were included in the analysis. AI models applied to PROMs data for outcome predictions are most commonly used in orthopaedics and oncology. Poor reporting of model hyperparameters and inconsistent techniques of handling class imbalance and missingness in data were found. The absence of external model validation, participants' ethnicity information and stakeholders involvement was common.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results highlight inconsistencies in conducting and reporting of AI research involving PROMs in patients' outcomes predictions, which reduces the reproducibility of the studies. Recommendations for external validation and stakeholders' involvement are given to increase the opportunities for applying AI models in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":"23 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11987430/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using artificial intelligence to predict patient outcomes from patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Zuzanna Wójcik, Vania Dimitrova, Lorraine Warrington, Galina Velikova, Kate Absolom\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12955-025-02365-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This scoping review aims to identify and summarise artificial intelligence (AI) methods applied to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for prediction of patient outcomes, such as survival, quality of life, or treatment decisions.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>AI models have been successfully applied to predict outcomes for patients using mainly clinically focused data. However, systematic guidance for utilising AI and PROMs for patient outcome predictions is lacking. This leads to inconsistency of model development and evaluation, limited practical implications, and poor translation to clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This review was conducted across Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM, Digital Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase databases. Adapted search terms identified published research using AI models with patient-reported data for outcome predictions. Papers using PROMs data as input variables in AI models for prediction of patient outcomes were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three thousand and seventy-seven records were screened, 94 of which were included in the analysis. AI models applied to PROMs data for outcome predictions are most commonly used in orthopaedics and oncology. Poor reporting of model hyperparameters and inconsistent techniques of handling class imbalance and missingness in data were found. The absence of external model validation, participants' ethnicity information and stakeholders involvement was common.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results highlight inconsistencies in conducting and reporting of AI research involving PROMs in patients' outcomes predictions, which reduces the reproducibility of the studies. Recommendations for external validation and stakeholders' involvement are given to increase the opportunities for applying AI models in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11987430/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02365-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02365-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本范围综述旨在识别和总结应用于患者报告结果测量(PROMs)的人工智能(AI)方法,用于预测患者结果,如生存、生活质量或治疗决策。人工智能模型已经成功地应用于预测患者的预后,主要使用临床数据。然而,缺乏利用人工智能和prom进行患者预后预测的系统指导。这导致模型开发和评估的不一致,有限的实际意义,以及对临床实践的不良转化。材料和方法:本综述通过Web of Science、IEEE explore、ACM、Digital Library、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Medline和Embase数据库进行。改编的搜索词使用人工智能模型和患者报告的数据进行结果预测,确定了已发表的研究。使用PROMs数据作为人工智能模型中用于预测患者预后的输入变量的论文被纳入。结果:共筛选记录377份,其中94份纳入分析。应用于PROMs数据进行结果预测的人工智能模型最常用于骨科和肿瘤学。发现模型超参数报告不佳,处理类不平衡和数据缺失的技术不一致。缺乏外部模型验证,参与者的种族信息和利益相关者的参与是常见的。结论:研究结果突出了涉及PROMs的人工智能研究在患者预后预测中的不一致性,这降低了研究的可重复性。提出了外部验证和利益相关者参与的建议,以增加在临床实践中应用人工智能模型的机会。
Using artificial intelligence to predict patient outcomes from patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.
Purpose: This scoping review aims to identify and summarise artificial intelligence (AI) methods applied to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for prediction of patient outcomes, such as survival, quality of life, or treatment decisions.
Introduction: AI models have been successfully applied to predict outcomes for patients using mainly clinically focused data. However, systematic guidance for utilising AI and PROMs for patient outcome predictions is lacking. This leads to inconsistency of model development and evaluation, limited practical implications, and poor translation to clinical practice.
Materials and methods: This review was conducted across Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM, Digital Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase databases. Adapted search terms identified published research using AI models with patient-reported data for outcome predictions. Papers using PROMs data as input variables in AI models for prediction of patient outcomes were included.
Results: Three thousand and seventy-seven records were screened, 94 of which were included in the analysis. AI models applied to PROMs data for outcome predictions are most commonly used in orthopaedics and oncology. Poor reporting of model hyperparameters and inconsistent techniques of handling class imbalance and missingness in data were found. The absence of external model validation, participants' ethnicity information and stakeholders involvement was common.
Conclusion: The results highlight inconsistencies in conducting and reporting of AI research involving PROMs in patients' outcomes predictions, which reduces the reproducibility of the studies. Recommendations for external validation and stakeholders' involvement are given to increase the opportunities for applying AI models in clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.