Machine Learning Compared With Conventional Statistical Models for Predicting Myocardial Infarction Readmission and Mortality: A Systematic Review

医学 机器学习 心肌梗塞 心脏病学 重症监护医学 内科学 计算机科学
作者
Sung Min Cho,Peter C. Austin,Heather J. Ross,Husam Abdel‐Qadir,Davide Chicco,George Tomlinson,Cameron Taheri,Farid Foroutan,Patrick R. Lawler,Filio Billia,Anthony O. Gramolini,Slava Epelman,Bo Wang,Douglas S. Lee
出处
期刊:Canadian Journal of Cardiology [Elsevier]
卷期号:37 (8): 1207-1214 被引量:43
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.cjca.2021.02.020
摘要

Machine learning (ML) methods are increasingly used in addition to conventional statistical modelling (CSM) for predicting readmission and mortality in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). However, the two approaches have not been systematically compared across studies of prognosis in patients with MI.Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed the literature via Medline, EPub, Cochrane Central, Embase, Inspec, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included primary research articles published from January 2000 to March 2020, comparing ML and CSM for prognostication after MI.Of 7,348 articles, 112 underwent full-text review, with the final set composed of 24 articles representing 374,365 patients. ML methods included artificial neural networks (n = 12 studies), random forests (n = 11), decision trees (n = 8), support vector machines (n = 8), and Bayesian techniques (n = 7). CSM included logistic regression (n = 19 studies), existing CSM-derived risk scores (n = 12), and Cox regression (n = 2). Thirteen of 19 studies examining mortality reported higher C-indexes with the use of ML compared with CSM. One study examined readmissions at 2 different time points, with C-indexes that were higher for ML than CSM. Across all studies, a total of 29 comparisons were performed, but the majority (n = 26, 90%) found small (< 0.05) absolute differences in the C-index between ML and CSM. With the use of a modified CHARMS checklist, sources of bias were identifiable in the majority of studies, and only 2 were externally validated.Although ML algorithms tended to have higher C-indexes than CSM for predicting death or readmission after MI, these studies exhibited threats to internal validity and were often unvalidated. Further comparisons are needed, with adherence to clinical quality standards for prognosis research. (Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42019134896).

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
crucible完成签到 ,获得积分10
1秒前
2秒前
2秒前
lgf完成签到,获得积分20
2秒前
时尚的妙芙完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
xulaoshi发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
xhh完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
starry完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
zha完成签到,获得积分20
3秒前
能干的尔柳完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
小糊涂仙儿完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
彭于晏应助科研1采纳,获得10
3秒前
4秒前
SciGPT应助ShengzhangLiu采纳,获得10
4秒前
大树完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
4秒前
深情安青应助槿裡采纳,获得10
5秒前
WW完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
852应助卡瓦丽咔采纳,获得10
5秒前
Jasper应助猫猫采纳,获得10
5秒前
二手空气完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
Zone完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
6秒前
阿金是学术渣渣完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
6秒前
花怜完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
虚心八宝粥完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
lalala发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
zyw完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
美好斓发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
牛马发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
zhonglv7应助张朗星采纳,获得10
8秒前
Miracle完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
8秒前
开朗的乐蕊完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
橙汁得配曼妥思完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
元66666完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
自然访彤完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
调皮如柏发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Aerospace Standards Index - 2026 ASIN2026 3000
Polymorphism and polytypism in crystals 1000
Signals, Systems, and Signal Processing 610
Discrete-Time Signals and Systems 610
Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 9th Edition 500
Social Work and Social Welfare: An Invitation(7th Edition) 410
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 纳米技术 有机化学 物理 生物化学 化学工程 计算机科学 复合材料 内科学 催化作用 光电子学 物理化学 电极 冶金 遗传学 细胞生物学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 6051743
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 7863753
关于积分的说明 16270782
捐赠科研通 5197037
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2780859
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1763778
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1645781