{"title":"使用机器学习方法预测产后出血风险:一项系统综述","authors":"Amene Ranjbar , Sepideh Rezaei Ghamsari , Banafsheh Boujarzadeh , Vahid Mehrnoush , Fatemeh Darsareh","doi":"10.1016/j.gocm.2023.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) could be avoided by identifying high-risk women. The objective of this systematic review is to determine PPH predictors using machine learning <strong>(</strong>ML) approaches.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>This strategy included searching for studies from inception through November 2022 through the database included: Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ProQuest, Scopus, WOS, IEEE Xplore, and the Google Scholar database. The search methodology employed the PICO framework (population, intervention, control, and outcomes). In this study, “P” represents PPH populations, “I” represents the ML approach as intervention, “C” represents the traditional statistical analysis approach as control, and “O” represents prediction and diagnosis outcomes. The quality assessment of each included study was performed using the PROBAST methodology.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The initial search strategy resulted in 2048 citations, which were subsequently refined by removing duplicates and irrelevant studies. Ultimately, four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the review. Among these studies, three were classified as having a low risk of bias, while one was considered to have a low to moderate risk of bias. A total of 549 unique variables were identified as candidate predictors from the included studies. Nine distinct models were chosen as ML algorithms from the four studies. Each of the four studies employed different metrics, such as the area under the curve, false positive rate, false negative rate, and sensitivity, to report the accuracy of their models. The ML models exhibited varying accuracies, with the area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.706 to 0.979. Several weighted predictors were identified as significant factors in PPH risk prediction. These included pre-pregnancy maternal weight, maternal weight at the time of admission, fetal macrosomia, gestational age, level of hematocrit at the time of admission, shock index, frequency of contractions during labor, white blood cell count, pregnancy-induced hypertension, the weight of the newborn, duration of the second stage of labor, amniotic fluid index, body mass index, and cesarean delivery before labor. These factors were determined to have a notable influence on the prediction of PPH risk.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The findings from ML models used to predict PPH are highly encouraging.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34826,"journal":{"name":"Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine","volume":"3 3","pages":"Pages 170-174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting risk of postpartum hemorrhage using machine learning approach: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Amene Ranjbar , Sepideh Rezaei Ghamsari , Banafsheh Boujarzadeh , Vahid Mehrnoush , Fatemeh Darsareh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gocm.2023.07.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) could be avoided by identifying high-risk women. The objective of this systematic review is to determine PPH predictors using machine learning <strong>(</strong>ML) approaches.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>This strategy included searching for studies from inception through November 2022 through the database included: Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ProQuest, Scopus, WOS, IEEE Xplore, and the Google Scholar database. The search methodology employed the PICO framework (population, intervention, control, and outcomes). In this study, “P” represents PPH populations, “I” represents the ML approach as intervention, “C” represents the traditional statistical analysis approach as control, and “O” represents prediction and diagnosis outcomes. The quality assessment of each included study was performed using the PROBAST methodology.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The initial search strategy resulted in 2048 citations, which were subsequently refined by removing duplicates and irrelevant studies. Ultimately, four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the review. Among these studies, three were classified as having a low risk of bias, while one was considered to have a low to moderate risk of bias. A total of 549 unique variables were identified as candidate predictors from the included studies. Nine distinct models were chosen as ML algorithms from the four studies. Each of the four studies employed different metrics, such as the area under the curve, false positive rate, false negative rate, and sensitivity, to report the accuracy of their models. The ML models exhibited varying accuracies, with the area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.706 to 0.979. Several weighted predictors were identified as significant factors in PPH risk prediction. These included pre-pregnancy maternal weight, maternal weight at the time of admission, fetal macrosomia, gestational age, level of hematocrit at the time of admission, shock index, frequency of contractions during labor, white blood cell count, pregnancy-induced hypertension, the weight of the newborn, duration of the second stage of labor, amniotic fluid index, body mass index, and cesarean delivery before labor. These factors were determined to have a notable influence on the prediction of PPH risk.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The findings from ML models used to predict PPH are highly encouraging.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34826,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 170-174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667164623000593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667164623000593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景产后出血(PPH)可以通过识别高危妇女来避免。本系统综述的目的是使用机器学习(ML)方法确定PPH预测因子。该策略包括通过Cochrane Central Register、PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE、ProQuest、Scopus、WOS、IEEE Xplore和Google Scholar数据库搜索从成立到2022年11月的研究。搜索方法采用PICO框架(人群、干预、控制和结果)。在本研究中,“P”代表PPH群体,“I”代表干预的ML方法,“C”代表控制的传统统计分析方法,“O”代表预测和诊断结果。采用PROBAST方法对每个纳入的研究进行质量评估。最初的搜索策略产生了2048条引用,随后通过删除重复和不相关的研究对其进行了改进。最终,四项研究被认为符合纳入综述的条件。在这些研究中,3项被归类为低偏倚风险,1项被认为具有低至中等偏倚风险。从纳入的研究中,共有549个独特的变量被确定为候选预测因子。从这四项研究中选择了九个不同的模型作为ML算法。四项研究中的每一项都采用了不同的指标,如曲线下面积、假阳性率、假阴性率和敏感性,来报告其模型的准确性。ML模型具有不同的精度,曲线下面积(AUC)在0.706 ~ 0.979之间。几个加权预测因子被确定为PPH风险预测的重要因素。这些指标包括孕前母亲体重、入院时母亲体重、胎儿巨大、胎龄、入院时红细胞压积水平、休克指数、分娩时宫缩频率、白细胞计数、妊娠高血压、新生儿体重、第二产程持续时间、羊水指数、体重指数和分娩前剖宫产。这些因素对PPH风险的预测有显著影响。结论ML模型预测PPH的结果令人鼓舞。
Predicting risk of postpartum hemorrhage using machine learning approach: A systematic review
Background
Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) could be avoided by identifying high-risk women. The objective of this systematic review is to determine PPH predictors using machine learning (ML) approaches.
Method
This strategy included searching for studies from inception through November 2022 through the database included: Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ProQuest, Scopus, WOS, IEEE Xplore, and the Google Scholar database. The search methodology employed the PICO framework (population, intervention, control, and outcomes). In this study, “P” represents PPH populations, “I” represents the ML approach as intervention, “C” represents the traditional statistical analysis approach as control, and “O” represents prediction and diagnosis outcomes. The quality assessment of each included study was performed using the PROBAST methodology.
Results
The initial search strategy resulted in 2048 citations, which were subsequently refined by removing duplicates and irrelevant studies. Ultimately, four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the review. Among these studies, three were classified as having a low risk of bias, while one was considered to have a low to moderate risk of bias. A total of 549 unique variables were identified as candidate predictors from the included studies. Nine distinct models were chosen as ML algorithms from the four studies. Each of the four studies employed different metrics, such as the area under the curve, false positive rate, false negative rate, and sensitivity, to report the accuracy of their models. The ML models exhibited varying accuracies, with the area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.706 to 0.979. Several weighted predictors were identified as significant factors in PPH risk prediction. These included pre-pregnancy maternal weight, maternal weight at the time of admission, fetal macrosomia, gestational age, level of hematocrit at the time of admission, shock index, frequency of contractions during labor, white blood cell count, pregnancy-induced hypertension, the weight of the newborn, duration of the second stage of labor, amniotic fluid index, body mass index, and cesarean delivery before labor. These factors were determined to have a notable influence on the prediction of PPH risk.
Conclusion
The findings from ML models used to predict PPH are highly encouraging.