Current state and completeness of reporting clinical prediction models using machine learning in systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review

被引:5
|
作者
Munguia-Realpozo, Pamela [1 ,2 ]
Etchegaray-Morales, Ivet [2 ]
Mendoza-Pinto, Claudia [1 ,2 ]
Mendez-Martinez, Socorro [3 ]
Osorio-Pena, Angel David [2 ]
Ayon-Aguilar, Jorge [3 ]
Garcia-Carrasco, Mario [2 ]
机构
[1] Specialties Hosp UMAE, Mexican Inst Social Secur, Syst Autoimmune Dis Res Unit, CIBIOR, Puebla, Mexico
[2] Meritorious Autonomous Univ Puebla, Med Sch, Dept Rheumatol, Puebla, Mexico
[3] Mexican Social Secur Inst, Coordinat Hlth Res, Puebla, Mexico
关键词
Machine learning; Prediction; Big data; Rheumatic autoimmune diseases; Systematic review; CLASSIFICATION; DIAGNOSIS; OUTCOMES; RISK; ATHEROSCLEROSIS; SIGNATURES; PROGNOSIS; NEPHRITIS; CRITERIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.autrev.2023.103294
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Objective: We carried out a systematic review (SR) of adherence in diagnostic and prognostic applications of ML in SLE using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement.Methods: A SR employing five databases was conducted from its inception until December 2021. We identified articles that evaluated the utilization of ML for prognostic and/or diagnostic purposes. This SR was reported based on the PRISMA guidelines. The TRIPOD statement assessed adherence to reporting standards. Assessment for risk of bias was done using PROBAST tool.Results: We included 45 studies: 29 (64.4%) diagnostic and 16 (35.5%) prognostic prediction- model studies. Overall, articles adhered by between 17% and 67% (median 43%, IQR 37-49%) to TRIPOD items. Only few articles reported the model's predictive performance (2.3%, 95% CI 0.06-12.0), testing of interaction terms (2.3%, 95% CI 0.06-12.0), flow of participants (50%, 95% CI; 34.6-65.4), blinding of predictors (2.3%, 95% CI 0.06-12.0), handling of missing data (36.4%, 95% CI 22.4-52.2), and appropriate title (20.5%, 95% CI 9.8-35.3). Some items were almost completely reported: the source of data (88.6%, 95% CI 75.4-96.2), eligibility criteria (86.4%, 95% CI 76.2-96.5), and interpretation of findings (88.6%, 95% CI 75.4-96.2). In addition, most of model studies had high risk of bias.Conclusions: The reporting adherence of ML-based model developed for SLE, is currently inadequate. Several items deemed crucial for transparent reporting were not fully reported in studies on ML-based prediction models. Review registration. PROSPERO ID# CRD42021284881. (Amended to limit the scope).
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review
    Dhiman, Paula
    Ma, Jie
    Navarro, Constanza L. Andaur
    Speich, Benjamin
    Bullock, Garrett
    Damen, Johanna A. A.
    Hooft, Lotty
    Kirtley, Shona
    Riley, Richard D.
    Van Calster, Ben
    Moons, Karel G. M.
    Collins, Gary S.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [42] Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review
    Paula Dhiman
    Jie Ma
    Constanza L. Andaur Navarro
    Benjamin Speich
    Garrett Bullock
    Johanna A. A. Damen
    Lotty Hooft
    Shona Kirtley
    Richard D. Riley
    Ben Van Calster
    Karel G. M. Moons
    Gary S. Collins
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22
  • [43] Prediction of Preeclampsia Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models: A Review
    Aljameel, Sumayh S.
    Alzahrani, Manar
    Almusharraf, Reem
    Altukhais, Majd
    Alshaia, Sadeem
    Sahlouli, Hanan
    Aslam, Nida
    Khan, Irfan Ullah
    Alabbad, Dina A.
    Alsumayt, Albandari
    BIG DATA AND COGNITIVE COMPUTING, 2023, 7 (01)
  • [44] Availability and reporting quality of external validations of machine-learning prediction models with orthopedic surgical outcomes: a systematic review
    Groot, Olivier Q.
    Bindels, Bas J. J.
    Ogink, Paul T.
    Kapoor, Neal D.
    Twining, Peter K.
    Collins, Austin K.
    Bongers, Michiel E. R.
    Lans, Amanda
    Oosterhoff, Jacobsen H. F.
    Karhade, Aditya, V
    Verlaan, Jorrit-Jan
    Schwab, Joseph H.
    ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA, 2021, 92 (04) : 385 - 393
  • [45] Systematic review finds "spin"practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models
    Navarro, Constanza L. Andaur
    Damen, Johanna A. A.
    Takada, Toshihiko
    Nijman, Steven W. J.
    Dhiman, Paula
    Ma, Jie
    Collins, Gary S.
    Bajpai, Ram
    Riley, Richard D.
    Moons, Karel G. M.
    Hooft, Lotty
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 158 : 99 - 110
  • [46] The State of Machine Learning in Outcomes Prediction of Transsphenoidal Surgery: A Systematic Review
    Yang, Darrion B. B.
    Smith, Alexander D. D.
    Smith, Emily J. J.
    Naik, Anant
    Janbahan, Mika
    Thompson, Charee M. M.
    Varshney, Lav R. R.
    Hassaneen, Wael
    JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY PART B-SKULL BASE, 2023, 84 (06) : 548 - 559
  • [47] Stroke mortality prediction using machine learning: systematic review
    Schwartz, Lihi
    Anteby, Roi
    Klang, Eyal
    Soffer, Shelly
    JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 444
  • [48] A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models
    Christodoulou, Evangelia
    Ma, Jie
    Collins, Gary S.
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Verbakel, Jan Y.
    Van Calster, Ben
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 110 : 12 - 22
  • [49] State of the Art of Machine Learning Models in Energy Systems, a Systematic Review
    Mosavi, Amir
    Salimi, Mohsen
    Ardabili, Sina Faizollahzadeh
    Rabczuk, Timon
    Shamshirband, Shahaboddin
    Varkonyi-Koczy, Annamaria R.
    ENERGIES, 2019, 12 (07)
  • [50] Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Literature Review
    Mosavi, Amir
    Ozturk, Pinar
    Chau, Kwok-wing
    WATER, 2018, 10 (11)