预测糖尿病患者心力衰竭的机器学习算法的诊断性能:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.6 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Pooya Eini, Peyman Eini, Homa Serpoush, Mohammad Rezayee
{"title":"预测糖尿病患者心力衰竭的机器学习算法的诊断性能:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Pooya Eini,&nbsp;Peyman Eini,&nbsp;Homa Serpoush,&nbsp;Mohammad Rezayee","doi":"10.1002/edm2.70111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Heart failure is a significant complication in diabetic patients, and machine learning algorithms offer potential for early prediction. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML models in predicting HF among diabetic patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, and Scopus, identifying 2830 articles. After deduplication and screening, 16 studies were included, with 7 providing data for meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using PROBAST+AI. A bivariate random-effects model (Stata, midas, metadta) pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for best-performing algorithms, with subgroup analyses. Heterogeneity (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup>) and publication bias were assessed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>This meta-analysis of seven studies evaluating machine learning models for heart failure detection demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI: 0.75–0.90), specificity of 86% (95% CI: 0.56–0.97), and an area under the ROC curve of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.93). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 6.6 (95% CI: 1.2–35.9), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.08–0.36), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 39 (95% CI: 4–423). Significant heterogeneity was observed, primarily related to differences in study populations, machine learning algorithms, dataset sizes, and validation methods. No significant publication bias was detected.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Machine learning models demonstrate promising diagnostic accuracy for heart failure detection and have the potential to support early diagnosis and risk assessment in clinical practice. However, considerable heterogeneity across studies and limited external validation highlight the need for standardised development, prospective validation, and improved interpretability of ML models to ensure their effective integration into healthcare systems.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36522,"journal":{"name":"Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism","volume":"8 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12445121/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Heart Failure in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Pooya Eini,&nbsp;Peyman Eini,&nbsp;Homa Serpoush,&nbsp;Mohammad Rezayee\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/edm2.70111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Heart failure is a significant complication in diabetic patients, and machine learning algorithms offer potential for early prediction. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML models in predicting HF among diabetic patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, and Scopus, identifying 2830 articles. After deduplication and screening, 16 studies were included, with 7 providing data for meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using PROBAST+AI. A bivariate random-effects model (Stata, midas, metadta) pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for best-performing algorithms, with subgroup analyses. Heterogeneity (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup>) and publication bias were assessed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>This meta-analysis of seven studies evaluating machine learning models for heart failure detection demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI: 0.75–0.90), specificity of 86% (95% CI: 0.56–0.97), and an area under the ROC curve of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.93). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 6.6 (95% CI: 1.2–35.9), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.08–0.36), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 39 (95% CI: 4–423). Significant heterogeneity was observed, primarily related to differences in study populations, machine learning algorithms, dataset sizes, and validation methods. No significant publication bias was detected.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Machine learning models demonstrate promising diagnostic accuracy for heart failure detection and have the potential to support early diagnosis and risk assessment in clinical practice. However, considerable heterogeneity across studies and limited external validation highlight the need for standardised development, prospective validation, and improved interpretability of ML models to ensure their effective integration into healthcare systems.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism\",\"volume\":\"8 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12445121/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edm2.70111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edm2.70111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:心力衰竭是糖尿病患者的重要并发症,机器学习算法为早期预测提供了潜力。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了ML模型在预测糖尿病患者心衰方面的诊断性能。方法:检索PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, Scopus,共2830篇。经过重复数据删除和筛选,共纳入16项研究,其中7项为meta分析提供数据。采用PROBAST+AI评估研究质量。双变量随机效应模型(Stata, midas, metadta)汇集了最佳算法的敏感性,特异性,似然比和诊断优势比(DOR),并进行了亚组分析。评估异质性(I2)和发表偏倚。结果:这项荟萃分析了7项评估机器学习模型用于心力衰竭检测的研究,结果表明,总灵敏度为84% (95% CI: 0.75-0.90),特异性为86% (95% CI: 0.56-0.97), ROC曲线下面积为0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93)。合并阳性似然比为6.6 (95% CI: 1.2-35.9),阴性似然比为0.17 (95% CI: 0.08-0.36),诊断优势比为39 (95% CI: 4-423)。观察到显著的异质性,主要与研究人群、机器学习算法、数据集大小和验证方法的差异有关。未发现显著的发表偏倚。结论:机器学习模型在心力衰竭检测中显示出有希望的诊断准确性,并有可能在临床实践中支持早期诊断和风险评估。然而,研究之间的相当大的异质性和有限的外部验证突出了标准化开发、前瞻性验证和改进ML模型的可解释性的需要,以确保它们有效地集成到医疗保健系统中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Heart Failure in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Heart Failure in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Heart failure is a significant complication in diabetic patients, and machine learning algorithms offer potential for early prediction. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML models in predicting HF among diabetic patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, and Scopus, identifying 2830 articles. After deduplication and screening, 16 studies were included, with 7 providing data for meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using PROBAST+AI. A bivariate random-effects model (Stata, midas, metadta) pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for best-performing algorithms, with subgroup analyses. Heterogeneity (I2) and publication bias were assessed.

Results

This meta-analysis of seven studies evaluating machine learning models for heart failure detection demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI: 0.75–0.90), specificity of 86% (95% CI: 0.56–0.97), and an area under the ROC curve of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.93). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 6.6 (95% CI: 1.2–35.9), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.08–0.36), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 39 (95% CI: 4–423). Significant heterogeneity was observed, primarily related to differences in study populations, machine learning algorithms, dataset sizes, and validation methods. No significant publication bias was detected.

Conclusion

Machine learning models demonstrate promising diagnostic accuracy for heart failure detection and have the potential to support early diagnosis and risk assessment in clinical practice. However, considerable heterogeneity across studies and limited external validation highlight the need for standardised development, prospective validation, and improved interpretability of ML models to ensure their effective integration into healthcare systems.

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
Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism Medicine-Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信