不同类型白血病的预测模型:系统回顾和批判性评价。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Yingzi Yang, Ayizhati Tuerxun, Xinqi Cai, Xinyu Chen, Zhuoya Zhao, Yang Zhao, Zinuo Lin, Shengfeng Wang
{"title":"不同类型白血病的预测模型:系统回顾和批判性评价。","authors":"Yingzi Yang, Ayizhati Tuerxun, Xinqi Cai, Xinyu Chen, Zhuoya Zhao, Yang Zhao, Zinuo Lin, Shengfeng Wang","doi":"10.1007/s00432-025-06314-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically review and evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias (ROB) of leukemia prediction models essential for clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed 148 prediction models published before August 2023 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of science databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data using CHARMS criteria. ROB was assessed using PROBAST. Models were categorized by leukemia subtype and analyzed for methodological characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 61 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) models primarily predicted survival (82.0%), diagnosis (4.9%), or death (4.9%) using predictors including age, cytogenetic risk, and white blood cell count. Among the 22 chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) models, the focus was on survival (72.7%) and time to treatment (19.0%), utilizing blast percentage, age, and platelet count. A total of 21 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) models primarily predicted survival (71.4%) using IGHV status, Rai stage, and age. The methodological shortcomings including incomplete reporting, methodological limitations, and high ROB were consistent across different leukemia subtypes. Traditional statistical methods predominated (Cox regression 72.9%, logistic regression 12.2%), with only nine machine learning models. Critical methodological limitations included lack of internal validation (52.0%) and external validation (57.4%). Only 43.2% reported discrimination metrics (AUC 0.60-0.99), with 28.0% achieving AUC > 0.7. Calibration was reported in only 23.0% of models. High ROB affected 93.9% of studies, primarily due to inadequate data handling and validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing leukemia prediction models have limited clinical utility due to methodological shortcomings and high ROB. Future research should prioritize transparent reporting, rigorous validation, and external validation to enhance clinical applicability and generalizability.</p>","PeriodicalId":15118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology","volume":"151 10","pages":"268"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12476341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prediction models for different types of leukemia: a systematic review and critical appraisal.\",\"authors\":\"Yingzi Yang, Ayizhati Tuerxun, Xinqi Cai, Xinyu Chen, Zhuoya Zhao, Yang Zhao, Zinuo Lin, Shengfeng Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00432-025-06314-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically review and evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias (ROB) of leukemia prediction models essential for clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed 148 prediction models published before August 2023 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of science databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data using CHARMS criteria. ROB was assessed using PROBAST. Models were categorized by leukemia subtype and analyzed for methodological characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 61 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) models primarily predicted survival (82.0%), diagnosis (4.9%), or death (4.9%) using predictors including age, cytogenetic risk, and white blood cell count. Among the 22 chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) models, the focus was on survival (72.7%) and time to treatment (19.0%), utilizing blast percentage, age, and platelet count. A total of 21 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) models primarily predicted survival (71.4%) using IGHV status, Rai stage, and age. The methodological shortcomings including incomplete reporting, methodological limitations, and high ROB were consistent across different leukemia subtypes. Traditional statistical methods predominated (Cox regression 72.9%, logistic regression 12.2%), with only nine machine learning models. Critical methodological limitations included lack of internal validation (52.0%) and external validation (57.4%). Only 43.2% reported discrimination metrics (AUC 0.60-0.99), with 28.0% achieving AUC > 0.7. Calibration was reported in only 23.0% of models. High ROB affected 93.9% of studies, primarily due to inadequate data handling and validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing leukemia prediction models have limited clinical utility due to methodological shortcomings and high ROB. Future research should prioritize transparent reporting, rigorous validation, and external validation to enhance clinical applicability and generalizability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology\",\"volume\":\"151 10\",\"pages\":\"268\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12476341/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-025-06314-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-025-06314-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:系统回顾和评价临床决策所必需的白血病预测模型的方法学质量和偏倚风险(ROB)。方法:我们从PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library和Web of science数据库中回顾了2023年8月之前发表的148个预测模型。两位审稿人使用CHARMS标准独立筛选文章并提取数据。使用PROBAST评估ROB。根据白血病亚型对模型进行分类并分析方法学特征。结果:共有61种急性髓性白血病(AML)模型主要预测生存(82.0%)、诊断(4.9%)或死亡(4.9%),预测因素包括年龄、细胞遗传风险和白细胞计数。在22个慢性髓性白血病(CML)模型中,重点是生存(72.7%)和治疗时间(19.0%),利用原始细胞百分比、年龄和血小板计数。共有21种慢性淋巴细胞白血病(CLL)模型主要通过IGHV状态、Rai分期和年龄预测生存率(71.4%)。方法上的缺陷包括报告不完整、方法局限性和高ROB在不同的白血病亚型中是一致的。传统统计方法占主导地位(Cox回归72.9%,逻辑回归12.2%),只有9个机器学习模型。关键的方法学局限性包括缺乏内部验证(52.0%)和外部验证(57.4%)。只有43.2%的人报告了歧视指标(AUC为0.60-0.99),28.0%的人达到了AUC 0.7。只有23.0%的模型报告了校准。高ROB影响了93.9%的研究,主要是由于数据处理和验证不足。结论:现有的白血病预测模型由于方法学上的缺陷和高罗布,临床应用有限。未来的研究应优先考虑透明的报告、严格的验证和外部验证,以提高临床适用性和普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prediction models for different types of leukemia: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

Objectives: To systematically review and evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias (ROB) of leukemia prediction models essential for clinical decision-making.

Methods: We reviewed 148 prediction models published before August 2023 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of science databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data using CHARMS criteria. ROB was assessed using PROBAST. Models were categorized by leukemia subtype and analyzed for methodological characteristics.

Results: A total of 61 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) models primarily predicted survival (82.0%), diagnosis (4.9%), or death (4.9%) using predictors including age, cytogenetic risk, and white blood cell count. Among the 22 chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) models, the focus was on survival (72.7%) and time to treatment (19.0%), utilizing blast percentage, age, and platelet count. A total of 21 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) models primarily predicted survival (71.4%) using IGHV status, Rai stage, and age. The methodological shortcomings including incomplete reporting, methodological limitations, and high ROB were consistent across different leukemia subtypes. Traditional statistical methods predominated (Cox regression 72.9%, logistic regression 12.2%), with only nine machine learning models. Critical methodological limitations included lack of internal validation (52.0%) and external validation (57.4%). Only 43.2% reported discrimination metrics (AUC 0.60-0.99), with 28.0% achieving AUC > 0.7. Calibration was reported in only 23.0% of models. High ROB affected 93.9% of studies, primarily due to inadequate data handling and validation.

Conclusions: Existing leukemia prediction models have limited clinical utility due to methodological shortcomings and high ROB. Future research should prioritize transparent reporting, rigorous validation, and external validation to enhance clinical applicability and generalizability.

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
4.00
自引率
2.80%
发文量
577
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The "Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology" publishes significant and up-to-date articles within the fields of experimental and clinical oncology. The journal, which is chiefly devoted to Original papers, also includes Reviews as well as Editorials and Guest editorials on current, controversial topics. The section Letters to the editors provides a forum for a rapid exchange of comments and information concerning previously published papers and topics of current interest. Meeting reports provide current information on the latest results presented at important congresses. The following fields are covered: carcinogenesis - etiology, mechanisms; molecular biology; recent developments in tumor therapy; general diagnosis; laboratory diagnosis; diagnostic and experimental pathology; oncologic surgery; and epidemiology.
×
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