Statistical and machine learning methods for cancer research and clinical practice: A systematic review

被引:0
|
作者
Lopez-Perez, Laura
Georga, Eleni [1 ,2 ]
Conti, Carlo [3 ]
Vicente, Victor
Garcia, Rebeca
Pecchia, Leandro [4 ]
Fotiadis, Dimitris [1 ,2 ]
Licitra, Lisa [3 ,5 ,6 ]
Cabrera, Maria Fernanda
Arredondo, Maria Teresa
Fico, Giuseppe [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Politecn Madrid, Life Supporting Technol Res Grp, ETSIT, Madrid, Spain
[2] Univ Ioannina, Dept Mat Sci & Engn, Unit Med Technol & Intelligent Informat Syst, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece
[3] Biomed Res Inst, Fdn Res & Technol Hellas FORTH, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece
[4] Univ Milan, Dept Oncol & Hematooncol, Milan, Italy
[5] Univ Campus Biomed Roma, Rome, Italy
[6] Fdn IRCCS Ist Nazl Tumori, Head & Neck Med Oncol Dept, Milan, Italy
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
Cancer research; Data quality; Knowledge transfer; Machine learning; Statistical analysis; ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE; PROGNOSTIC-FACTORS; RISK; DIAGNOSIS; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.bspc.2024.106067
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Background: Cancer is progressively becoming the most prevalent disease worldwide, accompanied by significantly increasing investments in research to improve its prevention, early detection, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Predictive analytics are showing promising performance when applied to these tasks, with recent reporting guidelines supporting unbiased data analytics whose outcomes demonstrate a clinical benefit. Methods: A systematic review has been conducted to analyse statistical- and ML-based prediction model studies on cancer research from 2010 to 2020. The PRISMA and PROBAST methodologies have been adopted. Findings: Statistical analysis (46.4 %) and linear ML-based methods (36.4 %) predominate over non-linear MLbased methods (17.2 %) among the examined studies. Only 11 % of the studies are associated with a low risk of bias (ROB), whereas the majority of studies (69 %) has been judged as unclear ROB, an aftereffect of the incompleteness (non-transparency) in their reporting. Lastly, 81.6 % of the investigated studies do not report any data quality assessment procedure. A qualitative analysis of the studies from 2021 to 2023 shows a shift to combining data-driven and systems biology computational approaches. Interpretation: The alignment with systematic procedures for reporting and assessing prediction model studies is a prerequisite towards responsible research. These procedures will enable ML-based interventions in the field of cancer research, demonstrating the clinical value of their findings.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A review of statistical and machine learning methods for modeling cancer risk using structured clinical data
    Richter, Aaron N.
    Khoshgoftaar, Taghi M.
    [J]. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MEDICINE, 2018, 90 : 1 - 14
  • [2] A systematic literature review of predicting patient discharges using statistical methods and machine learning
    Pahlevani, Mahsa
    Taghavi, Majid
    Vanberkel, Peter
    [J]. HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2024,
  • [3] Analyzing adverse drug reaction using statistical and machine learning methods A systematic review
    Kim, Hae Reong
    Sung, MinDong
    Park, Ji Ae
    Jeong, Kyeongseob
    Kim, Ho Heon
    Lee, Suehyun
    Park, Yu Rang
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2022, 101 (25) : E29387
  • [4] Clinical Research Machine Learning Compared With Conventional Statistical Models for Predicting Myocardial Infarction Readmission and Mortality: A Systematic Review
    Cho, Sung Min
    Austin, Peter C.
    Ross, Heather J.
    Abdel-Qadir, Husam
    Chicco, Davide
    Tomlinson, George
    Taheri, Cameron
    Foroutan, Farid
    Lawler, Patrick R.
    Billia, Filio
    Gramolini, Anthony
    Epelman, Slava
    Wang, Bo
    Lee, Douglas S.
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2021, 37 (08) : 1207 - 1214
  • [5] Machine Learning in Asthma Research and Clinical Practice
    Custovic, Adnan
    Fontanella, Sara
    [J]. PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY, 2022, 57 : S10 - S11
  • [6] A review on statistical and machine learning competing risks methods
    Monterrubio-Gomez, Karla
    Constantine-Cooke, Nathan
    Vallejos, Catalina A.
    [J]. BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 66 (02)
  • [7] Machine Learning and Computer Vision Based Methods for Cancer Classification: A Systematic Review
    Mukadam, Sufiyan Bashir
    Patil, Hemprasad Yashwant
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF COMPUTATIONAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, 2024, 31 (05) : 3015 - 3050
  • [8] A Systematic Review of Statistical and Machine Learning Methods for Electrical Power Forecasting with Reported MAPE Score
    Vivas, Eliana
    Allende-Cid, Hector
    Salas, Rodrigo
    [J]. ENTROPY, 2020, 22 (12) : 1 - 24
  • [9] Reporting of Model Performance and Statistical Methods in Studies That Use Machine Learning to Develop Clinical Prediction Models: Protocol for a Systematic Review
    Weaver, Colin George Wyllie
    Basmadjian, Robert B.
    Williamson, Tyler
    McBrien, Kerry
    Sajobi, Tolu
    Boyne, Devon
    Yusuf, Mohamed
    Ronksley, Paul Everett
    [J]. JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2022, 11 (03):
  • [10] Potential applications and performance of machine learning techniques and algorithms in clinical practice: A systematic review
    Nwanosike, Ezekwesiri Michael
    Conway, Barbara R.
    Merchant, Hamid A.
    Hasan, Syed Shahzad
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2022, 159