Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool Research Articles

Clinical prediction models for treatment outcomes in newly diagnosed epilepsy: A systematic review.

Up to 35% of individuals diagnosed with epilepsy continue to have seizures despite treatment, commonly referred to as drug-resistant epilepsy. Uncontrolled seizures can directly, or indirectly, negatively impact an individual's quality of life. To inform clinical management and life decisions, it is important to be able to predict the likelihood of seizure control. Those likely to achieve seizure control will be able to return sooner to their usual work and leisure activities and require less follow-up, whereas those with a poor prognosis will need more frequent clinical attendance and earlier consideration of epilepsy surgery. This is a systematic review aimed at identifying demographic, clinical, physiological (e.g., electroencephalographic), and imaging (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging) factors that may be predictive of treatment outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy (NDE). MEDLINE and Embase were searched for prediction models of treatment outcomes in patients with NDE. Study characteristics were extracted and subjected to assessment of risk of bias (and applicability concerns) using the PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) tool. Baseline variables associated with treatment outcomes are reported as prognostic factors. After screening, 48 models were identified in 32 studies, which generally scored low for concerns of applicability, but universally scored high for susceptibility to bias. Outcomes reported fit broadly into four categories: drug resistance, short-term treatment response, seizure remission, and mortality. Prognostic factors were also heterogenous, but the predictors that were commonly significantly associated with outcomes were those related to seizure characteristics/types, epilepsy history, and age at onset. Antiseizure medication response was often included as a baseline variable, potentially obscuring other factor relationships at baseline. Currently, outcome prediction models for NDE demonstrate a high risk of bias. Model development could be improved with a stronger adherence to recommended TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) practices. Furthermore, we outline actionable changes to common practices that are intended to improve the overall quality of prediction model development in NDE.

Evaluating Biases and Quality Issues in Intermodality Image Translation Studies for Neuroradiology: A Systematic Review.

Intermodality image-to-image translation is an artificial intelligence technique for generating one technique from another. This review was designed to systematically identify and quantify biases and quality issues preventing validation and clinical application of artificial intelligence models for intermodality image-to-image translation of brain imaging. PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched through August 2, 2023, for artificial intelligence-based image translation models of radiologic brain images. This review collected 102 works published between April 2017 and August 2023. Eligible studies were evaluated for quality using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and for bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Medically-focused article adherence was compared with that of engineering-focused articles overall with the Mann-Whitney U test and for each criterion using the Fisher exact test. Median adherence to the relevant CLAIM criteria was 69% and 38% for PROBAST questions. CLAIM adherence was lower for engineering-focused articles compared with medically-focused articles (65% versus 73%, P < .001). Engineering-focused studies had higher adherence for model description criteria, and medically-focused studies had higher adherence for data set and evaluation descriptions. Our review is limited by the study design and model heterogeneity. Nearly all studies revealed critical issues preventing clinical application, with engineering-focused studies showing higher adherence for the technical model description but significantly lower overall adherence than medically-focused studies. The pursuit of clinical application requires collaboration from both fields to improve reporting.

Prediction of incident chronic kidney disease in community-based electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major global health problem and its early identification would allow timely intervention to reduce complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of multivariable prediction models derived and/or validated in community-based electronic health records (EHRs) for the prediction of incident CKD in the community. Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase were searched for records from 1947 to 31 January 2024. Measures of discrimination were extracted and pooled by Bayesian meta-analysis, with heterogeneity assessed through a 95% prediction interval (PI). Risk of bias was assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and certainty in effect estimates by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Seven studies met inclusion criteria, describing 12 prediction models, with two eligible for meta-analysis including 2173202 patients. The Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium (CKD-PC) (summary c-statistic 0.847; 95% CI 0.827-0.867; 95% PI 0.780-0.905) and SCreening for Occult REnal Disease (SCORED) (summary c-statistic 0.811; 95% CI 0.691-0.926; 95% PI 0.514-0.992) models had good model discrimination performance. Risk of bias was high in 64% of models, and driven by the analysis domain. No model met eligibility for meta-analysis if studies at high risk of bias were excluded, and certainty of effect estimates was 'low'. No clinical utility analyses or clinical impact studies were found for any of the models. Models derived and/or externally validated for prediction of incident CKD in community-based EHRs demonstrate good prediction performance, but assessment of clinical usefulness is limited by high risk of bias, low certainty of evidence and a lack of impact studies.

Predictive Models to Assess Risk of Persistent Opioid Use, Opioid Use Disorder, and Overdose.

This systematic review summarizes the development, accuracy, quality, and clinical utility of predictive models to assess the risk of opioid use disorder (OUD), persistent opioid use, and opioid overdose. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines, 8 electronic databases were searched for studies on predictive models and OUD, overdose, or persistent use in adults until June 25, 2023. Study selection and data extraction were completed independently by 2 reviewers. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed independently by 2 reviewers using the Prediction model Risk of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The literature search yielded 3130 reports; after removing 199 duplicates, excluding 2685 studies after abstract review, and excluding 204 studies after full-text review, the final sample consisted of 41 studies that developed more than 160 predictive models. Primary outcomes included opioid overdose (31.6% of studies), OUD (41.4%), and persistent opioid use (17%). The most common modeling approach was regression modeling, and the most common predictors included age, sex, mental health diagnosis history, and substance use disorder history. Most studies reported model performance via the c statistic, ranging from 0.507 to 0.959; gradient boosting tree models and neural network models performed well in the context of their own study. One study deployed a model in real time. Risk of bias was predominantly high; concerns regarding applicability were predominantly low. Models to predict opioid-related risks are developed using diverse data sources and predictors, with a wide and heterogenous range of accuracy metrics. There is a need for further research to improve their accuracy and implementation.

Predictive value of machine learning for the severity of acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPredicting the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) early poses a challenge in clinical practice. While there are well-established clinical scoring tools, their actual predictive performance remains uncertain. Various studies have explored the application of machine-learning methods for early AP prediction. However, a more comprehensive evidence-based assessment is needed to determine their predictive accuracy. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the predictive accuracy of machine learning in assessing the severity of AP. MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched until December 5, 2023. The risk of bias in eligible studies was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Subgroup analyses, based on different machine learning types, were performed. Additionally, the predictive accuracy of mainstream scoring tools was summarized. ResultsThis systematic review ultimately included 33 original studies. The pooled c-index in both the training and validation sets was 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.84–0.89) and 0.88 (95 % CI: 0.86–0.90), respectively. The sensitivity in the training set was 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.77–0.84), and in the validation set, it was 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.71–0.85). The specificity in the training set was 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.78–0.89), and in the validation set, it was 0.90 (95 % CI: 0.86–0.93). The primary model incorporated was logistic regression; however, its predictive accuracy was found to be inferior to that of neural networks, random forests, and xgboost. The pooled c-index of the APACHE II, BISAP, and Ranson were 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.68–0.80), 0.77 (95 % CI: 0.70–0.85), and 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.68–0.79), respectively. ConclusionsMachine learning demonstrates excellent accuracy in predicting the severity of AP, providing a reference for updating or developing a straightforward clinical prediction tool.

Prognostic risk models for incident hypertension: A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis.

Our goal was to review the available literature on prognostic risk prediction for incident hypertension, synthesize performance, and provide suggestions for future work on the topic. A systematic search on PUBMED and Web of Science databases was conducted for studies on prognostic risk prediction models for incident hypertension in generally healthy individuals. Study-quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist. Three-level meta-analyses were used to obtain pooled AUC/C-statistic estimates. Heterogeneity was explored using study and cohort characteristics in meta-regressions. From 5090 hits, we found 53 eligible studies, and included 47 in meta-analyses. Only four studies were assessed to have results with low risk of bias. Few models had been externally validated, with only the Framingham risk model validated more than thrice. The pooled AUC/C-statistics were 0.82 (0.77-0.86) for machine learning models and 0.78 (0.76-0.80) for traditional models, with high heterogeneity in both groups (I2 > 99%). Intra-class correlations within studies were 60% and 90%, respectively. Follow-up time (P = 0.0405) was significant for ML models and age (P = 0.0271) for traditional models in explaining heterogeneity. Validations of the Framingham risk model had high heterogeneity (I2 > 99%). Overall, the quality of included studies was assessed as poor. AUC/C-statistic were mostly acceptable or good, and higher for ML models than traditional models. High heterogeneity implies large variability in the performance of new risk models. Further, large heterogeneity in validations of the Framingham risk model indicate variability in model performance on new populations. To enable researchers to assess hypertension risk models, we encourage adherence to existing guidelines for reporting and developing risk models, specifically reporting appropriate performance measures. Further, we recommend a stronger focus on validation of models by considering reasonable baseline models and performing external validations of existing models. Hence, developed risk models must be made available for external researchers.

Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review.

The identification of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic fetuses is essential for counselling and managing these pregnancies. To systematically review the literature for multivariable prediction models for LGA and macrosomia, assessing the performance, quality and applicability of the included model in clinical practice. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2022. We included observational and experimental studies reporting the development and/or validation of any multivariable prediction model for fetal macrosomia and/or LGA. We excluded studies that used a single variable or did not evaluate model performance. Data were extracted using the Checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies checklist. The model performance measures discrimination, calibration and validation were extracted. The quality and completion of reporting within each study was assessed by its adherence to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. The risk of bias and applicability were measured using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool). A total of 8442 citations were identified, with 58 included in the analysis: 32/58 (55.2%) developed, 21/58 (36.2%) developed and internally validated and 2/58 (3.4%) developed and externally validated a model. Only three studies externally validated pre-existing models. Macrosomia and LGA were differentially defined by many studies. In total, 111 multivariable prediction models were developed using 112 different variables. Model discrimination was wide ranging area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC 0.56-0.96) and few studies reported calibration (11/58, 19.0%). Only 5/58 (8.6%) studies had a low risk of bias. There are currently no multivariable prediction models for macrosomia/LGA that are ready for clinical implementation.

Prognostic Models for Chronic Low Back Pain Outcomes in Primary Care Are at High Risk of Bias and Lack Validation-High-Quality Studies Are Needed: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated overview of available prognostic models for people with chronic low back pain (LBP) in primary care. DESIGN: Prognosis systematic review LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched for relevant studies on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases (up to July 13, 2022), and performed citation tracking in Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included observational (cohort or nested case-control) studies and randomized controlled trials that developed or validated prognostic models for adults with chronic LBP in primary care. The outcomes of interest were physical functioning, pain intensity, and health-related quality of life at any follow-up time-point. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the models. Due to the number of studies retrieved and the heterogeneity, we reported the results descriptively. RESULTS: Ten studies (out of 5593 hits screened) with 34 models met our inclusion criteria, of which six are development studies and four are external validation studies. Five studies reported the area under the curve of the models (ranging from 0.48 to 0.84), whereas no study reported calibration indices. The most promising model is the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire Short-Form. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high risk of bias and lack of external validation, we cannot recommend that clinicians use prognostic models for patients with chronic LBP in primary care settings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(5):1-13. Epub 15 February 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12081.

Risk prediction models for lung cancer in people who have never smoked: a protocol of a systematic review

BackgroundLung cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers and the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Although smoking is the primary cause of the cancer, lung cancer is also commonly diagnosed in people who have never smoked. Currently, the proportion of people who have never smoked diagnosed with lung cancer is increasing. Despite this alarming trend, this population is ineligible for lung screening. With the increasing proportion of people who have never smoked among lung cancer cases, there is a pressing need to develop prediction models to identify high-risk people who have never smoked and include them in lung cancer screening programs. Thus, our systematic review is intended to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on existing risk prediction models for lung cancer in people who have never smoked.MethodsElectronic searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), Scopus, and Europe PMC and Open-Access Theses and Dissertations databases. Two reviewers will independently perform title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction using the Covidence review platform. Data extraction will be performed based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS). The risk of bias will be evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Prediction model Risk-of-Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. If a sufficient number of studies are identified to have externally validated the same prediction model, we will combine model performance measures to evaluate the model’s average predictive accuracy (e.g., calibration, discrimination) across diverse settings and populations and explore sources of heterogeneity.DiscussionThe results of the review will identify risk prediction models for lung cancer in people who have never smoked. These will be useful for researchers planning to develop novel prediction models, and for clinical practitioners and policy makers seeking guidance for clinical decision-making and the formulation of future lung cancer screening strategies for people who have never smoked.Systematic review registrationThis protocol has been registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023483824.

ADNEX risk prediction model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies

ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review of studies externally validating the ADNEX (Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the adnexa) model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer and to present a meta-analysis of...

A Systematic Review on Artificial Intelligence Evaluating Metastatic Prostatic Cancer and Lymph Nodes on PSMA PET Scans

Early detection of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is crucial. Whilst the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scan has high diagnostic accuracy, it suffers from inter-reader variability, and the time-consuming reporting process. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42023456044) and aims to evaluate AI’s ability to enhance reporting, diagnostics, and predictive capabilities for mPCa on PSMA PET scans. Inclusion criteria covered studies using AI to evaluate mPCa on PSMA PET, excluding non-PSMA tracers. A search was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Scopus from inception to July 2023. After screening 249 studies, 11 remained eligible for inclusion. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, meta-analysis was precluded. The prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST) indicated a low overall risk of bias in ten studies, though only one incorporated clinical parameters (such as age, and Gleason score). AI demonstrated a high accuracy (98%) in identifying lymph node involvement and metastatic disease, albeit with sensitivity variation (62–97%). Advantages included distinguishing bone lesions, estimating tumour burden, predicting treatment response, and automating tasks accurately. In conclusion, AI showcases promising capabilities in enhancing the diagnostic potential of PSMA PET scans for mPCa, addressing current limitations in efficiency and variability.

Machine Learning Approaches for the Image-Based Identification of Surgical Wound Infections: Scoping Review.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) occur frequently and impact patients and health care systems. Remote surveillance of surgical wounds is currently limited by the need for manual assessment by clinicians. Machine learning (ML)-based methods have recently been used to address various aspects of the postoperative wound healing process and may be used to improve the scalability and cost-effectiveness of remote surgical wound assessment. The objective of this review was to provide an overview of the ML methods that have been used to identify surgical wound infections from images. We conducted a scoping review of ML approaches for visual detection of SSIs following the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology. Reports of participants in any postoperative context focusing on identification of surgical wound infections were included. Studies that did not address SSI identification, surgical wounds, or did not use image or video data were excluded. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science Core Collection, IEEE Xplore, Compendex, and arXiv for relevant studies in November 2022. The records retrieved were double screened for eligibility. A data extraction tool was used to chart the relevant data, which was described narratively and presented using tables. Employment of TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) guidelines was evaluated and PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) was used to assess risk of bias (RoB). In total, 10 of the 715 unique records screened met the eligibility criteria. In these studies, the clinical contexts and surgical procedures were diverse. All papers developed diagnostic models, though none performed external validation. Both traditional ML and deep learning methods were used to identify SSIs from mostly color images, and the volume of images used ranged from under 50 to thousands. Further, 10 TRIPOD items were reported in at least 4 studies, though 15 items were reported in fewer than 4 studies. PROBAST assessment led to 9 studies being identified as having an overall high RoB, with 1 study having overall unclear RoB. Research on the image-based identification of surgical wound infections using ML remains novel, and there is a need for standardized reporting. Limitations related to variability in image capture, model building, and data sources should be addressed in the future.

Prediction models for major adverse cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review.

The number of models developed for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasing, but the performance of these models is unknown. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate, describe, and compare existing models and analyze the factors that can predict outcomes. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 during the execution of this review. Databases including Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and SINOMED were comprehensively searched for identifying studies published from 1977 to 19 May 2023. Model development studies specifically designed for assessing the occurrence of MACE after PCI with or without external validation were included. Bias and transparency were evaluated by the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariate Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. The key findings were narratively summarized and presented in tables. A total of 5,234 articles were retrieved, and after thorough screening, 23 studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria were ultimately included. The models were mainly constructed using data from individuals diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The discrimination of the models, as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) or C-index, varied between 0.638 and 0.96. The commonly used predictor variables include LVEF, age, Killip classification, diabetes, and various others. All models were determined to have a high risk of bias, and their adherence to the TRIPOD items was reported to be over 60%. The existing models show some predictive ability, but all have a high risk of bias due to methodological shortcomings. This suggests that investigators should follow guidelines to develop high-quality models for better clinical service and dissemination. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=400835, Identifier CRD42023400835.

Predictive models for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis.

Lymph node metastasis is associated with a poorer prognosis in endometrial cancer. The objective was to synthesize and critically appraise existing predictive models for lymph node metastasis risk stratification in endometrial cancer. This study is a systematic review. We searched the Web of Science for articles reporting models predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer, with a systematic review and bibliometric analysis conducted based upon which. Risk of bias was assessed by the Prediction model Risk Of BiAS assessment Tool (PROBAST). A total of 64 articles were included in the systematic review, published between 2010 and 2023. The most common articles were "development only." Traditional clinicopathological parameters remained the mainstream in models, for example, serum tumor marker, myometrial invasion and tumor grade. Also, models based upon gene-signatures, radiomics and digital histopathological images exhibited an acceptable self-reported performance. The most frequently validated models were the Mayo criteria, which reached a negative predictive value of 97.1%-98.2%. Substantial variability and inconsistency were observed through PROBAST, indicating significant between-study heterogeneity. A further bibliometric analysis revealed a relatively weak link between authors and organizations on models predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. A number of predictive models for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer have been developed. Although some exhibited promising performance as they demonstrated adequate to good discrimination, few models can currently be recommended for clinical practice due to lack of independent validation, high risk of bias and low consistency in measured predictors. Collaborations between authors, organizations and countries were weak. Model updating, external validation and collaborative research are urgently needed. None.

Quality assessment of radiomics models in carotid plaque: a systematic review.

Although imaging techniques provide information about the morphology and stability of carotid plaque, they are operator dependent and may miss certain subtleties. A variety of radiomics models for carotid plaque have recently been proposed for identifying vulnerable plaques and predicting cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. The purpose of this review was to assess the risk of bias, reporting, and methodological quality of radiomics models for carotid atherosclerosis plaques. A systematic search was carried out to identify available literature published in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to March 2023. Studies that developed and/or validated machine learning models based on radiomics data to identify and/or predict unfavorable cerebral and cardiovascular events in carotid plaque were included. The basic information of each piece of included literature was identified, and the reporting quality, risk of bias, and radiomics methodology quality were assessed according the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) checklist, the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), and the radiomics quality score (RQS), respectively. A total of 2,738 patients from 19 studies were included. The mean overall TRIPOD adherence rate was 66.1% (standard deviation 12.8%), with a range of 45-87%. All studies had a high overall risk of bias, with the analysis domain being the most common source of bias. The mean RQS was 9.89 (standard deviation 5.70), accounting for 27.4% of the possible maximum value of 36. The mean area under the curve for diagnostic or predictive properties of these included radiomics models was 0.876±0.09, with a range of 0.741-0.989. Radiomics models may have value in the assessment of carotid plaque, the overall scientific validity and reporting quality of current carotid plaque radiomics reports are still lacking, and many barriers must be overcome before these models can be applied in clinical practice.

Prediction models for children/adolescents with obesity/overweight: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The incidence of obesity and overweight in children and adolescents is increasing worldwide and becomes a global health concern. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of available prediction models in early identification of obesity and overweight in general children or adolescents and identify predictive factors for the models, thus provide a reference for subsequent development of risk prediction tools for obesity and overweight in children or adolescents. Related publications were obtained from several databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from their inception to September 18th, 2022. The novel Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was employed to assess the bias risk of the included studies. R4.2.0 and Stata15.1 softwares were used to conduct meta-analysis. This study involved 45 cross-sectional and/or prospective studies with 126 models. Meta-analyses showed that the overall pooled index of concordance (c-index) of prediction models for children/adolescents with obesity and overweight in the training set was 0.769 (95% CI 0.754–0.785) and 0.835(95% CI 0.792–0.879), respectively. Additionally, a large number of predictors were found to be related to children's lifestyles, such as sleep duration, sleep quality, and eating speed. In conclusions, prediction models can be employed to predict obesity/overweight in children and adolescents. Most predictors are controllable factors and are associated with lifestyle. Therefore, the prediction model serves as an excellent tool to formulate effective strategies for combating obesity/overweight in pediatric patients.

Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis-related death: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objectivesSepsis is accompanied by a considerably high risk of mortality in the short term, despite the availability of recommended mortality risk assessment tools. However, these risk assessment tools seem to have limited predictive value. With the gradual integration of machine learning into clinical practice, some researchers have attempted to employ machine learning for early mortality risk prediction in sepsis patients. Nevertheless, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding the construction of predictive variables using machine learning and the value of various machine learning methods. Thus, we carried out this systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the predictive value of machine learning for sepsis-related death at different time points.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched until August 9th, 2022. The risk of bias in predictive models was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). We also performed subgroup analysis according to time of death and type of model and summarized current predictive variables used to construct models for sepsis death prediction.ResultsFifty original studies were included, covering 104 models. The combined Concordance index (C-index), sensitivity, and specificity of machine learning models were 0.799, 0.81, and 0.80 in the training set, and 0.774, 0.71, and 0.68 in the validation set, respectively. Machine learning outperformed conventional clinical scoring tools and showed excellent C-index, sensitivity, and specificity in different subgroups. Random Forest (RF) and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) are the preferred machine learning models because they showed more favorable accuracy with similar modeling variables. This study found that lactate was the most frequent predictor but was seriously ignored by current clinical scoring tools.ConclusionMachine learning methods demonstrate relatively favorable accuracy in predicting the mortality risk in sepsis patients. Given the limitations in accuracy and applicability of existing prediction scoring systems, there is an opportunity to explore updates based on existing machine learning approaches. Specifically, it is essential to develop or update more suitable mortality risk assessment tools based on the specific contexts of use, such as emergency departments, general wards, and intensive care units.

Using machine learning or deep learning models in a hospital setting to detect inappropriate prescriptions: a systematic review

ObjectivesThe emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) is catching the interest of hospital pharmacists. A massive collection of health data is now available to train AI models and hold the promise...

A systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction models for incident heart failure and chronic kidney disease in community-based electronic health records

Abstract Background Heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) share common pathophysiological pathways,(1) and disease-modifying therapies.(2-4) A model that identifies a high-risk population for HF and CKD in primary care electronic health records (EHRs) could facilitate population-based screening initiatives. Purpose To provide an overview of prediction models for incident HF and/or CKD that have been validated in community-based EHR cohorts, to determine common predictive variables, and synthesise discriminatory abilities. Methods We performed a systematic review of prediction models derived, validated and/or augmented for either HF and/or CKD prediction in community-based electronic health records cohorts using Medline and Embase through 25 September 2022. Measures of discrimination were extracted and pooled by Bayesian meta-analysis, with heterogeneity assessed through a 95% prediction interval (PI). Risk of bias was assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Results From 15 106 unique records we included 29 studies. We identified 36 models that had been developed and/or validated for incident HF, and 16 for incident CKD, though not one had been simultaneously validated for both outcomes in the same study. Machine learning methodology had been used to develop 25 models for incident HF prediction, and 2 models for CKD. Overall, 71% of model results were at high risk of bias predominantly driven by high risk of bias in the analysis domain. Calibration was infrequently reported for prediction models for incident HF, especially those developed through machine learning, but well-reported for prediction models of incident CKD. Age was included in almost every model (Figure 1), hypertension and diabetes were included in more than 70% of models, and markers of vascular risk or manifest disease were also frequently used. For prediction models of incident HF the summary c-statistic was 0.814 (95% CI 0.707-0.883, n = 54 reports) with a 95% PI 0.612-0.949 demonstrating a large amount of heterogeneity between studies. For prediction models for incident CKD the summary c-statistic was 0.833 (95% CI 0.804-0.859, n = 27 reports) with a 95% PI 0.672-0.945 demonstrating a large amount of heterogeneity between studies. In sensitivity analysis where model results at high risk of bias were excluded, the summary c-statistic for prediction models for incident HF was 0.878 (95% CI 0.841-0.914, 95% PI 0.780-0.957, n = 5 reports), and for CKD was 0.856 (95% CI 0.814-0.892, 95% PI 0.685-0.968, n = 13 reports). Conclusions Models for prediction of incident HF and CKD in community-based electronic health records show good discrimination performance and high risk of bias. Common predictors for incident CKD and HF suggest there are opportunities to unify prediction for these two common and treatable diseases.Figure 1:Shared predictors

Prediction of Complications and Prognostication in Perioperative Medicine: A Systematic Review and PROBAST Assessment of Machine Learning Tools.

The utilization of artificial intelligence and machine learning as diagnostic and predictive tools in perioperative medicine holds great promise. Indeed, many studies have been performed in recent years to explore the potential. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the current state of machine learning in perioperative medicine, its utility in prediction of complications and prognostication, and limitations related to bias and validation. A multidisciplinary team of clinicians and engineers conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol. Multiple databases were searched, including Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. The systematic review focused on study design, type of machine learning model used, validation techniques applied, and reported model performance on prediction of complications and prognostication. This review further classified outcomes and machine learning applications using an ad hoc classification system. The Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess risk of bias and applicability of the studies. A total of 103 studies were identified. The models reported in the literature were primarily based on single-center validations (75%), with only 13% being externally validated across multiple centers. Most of the mortality models demonstrated a limited ability to discriminate and classify effectively. The PROBAST assessment indicated a high risk of systematic errors in predicted outcomes and artificial intelligence or machine learning applications. The findings indicate that the development of this field is still in its early stages. This systematic review indicates that application of machine learning in perioperative medicine is still at an early stage. While many studies suggest potential utility, several key challenges must be first overcome before their introduction into clinical practice.