Critical appraisal of machine learning prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: protocol for a systematic review.

Amier Hassan, Brian Critelli, Ila Lahooti, Ali Lahooti, Nate Matzko, Jan Niklas Adams, Lukas Liss, Justin Quion, David Restrepo, Melica Nikahd, Stacey Culp, Lydia Noh, Kathleen Tong, Jun Sung Park, Venkata Akshintala, John A Windsor, Nikhil K Mull, Georgios I Papachristou, Leo Anthony Celi, Peter J Lee
{"title":"Critical appraisal of machine learning prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: protocol for a systematic review.","authors":"Amier Hassan, Brian Critelli, Ila Lahooti, Ali Lahooti, Nate Matzko, Jan Niklas Adams, Lukas Liss, Justin Quion, David Restrepo, Melica Nikahd, Stacey Culp, Lydia Noh, Kathleen Tong, Jun Sung Park, Venkata Akshintala, John A Windsor, Nikhil K Mull, Georgios I Papachristou, Leo Anthony Celi, Peter J Lee","doi":"10.1186/s41512-024-00169-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an acute inflammatory disorder that is common, costly, and is increasing in incidence worldwide with over 300,000 hospitalizations occurring yearly in the United States alone. As its course and outcomes vary widely, a critical knowledge gap in the field has been a lack of accurate prognostic tools to forecast AP patients' outcomes. Despite several published studies in the last three decades, the predictive performance of published prognostic models has been found to be suboptimal. Recently, non-regression machine learning models (ML) have garnered intense interest in medicine for their potential for better predictive performance. Each year, an increasing number of AP models are being published. However, their methodologic quality relating to transparent reporting and risk of bias in study design has never been systematically appraised. Therefore, through collaboration between a group of clinicians and data scientists with appropriate content expertise, we will perform a systematic review of papers published between January 2021 and December 2023 containing artificial intelligence prognostic models in AP. To systematically assess these studies, the authors will leverage the CHARMS checklist, PROBAST tool for risk of bias assessment, and the most current version of the TRIPOD-AI. (Research Registry ( http://www.reviewregistry1727 .).</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":"8 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10986113/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-024-00169-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an acute inflammatory disorder that is common, costly, and is increasing in incidence worldwide with over 300,000 hospitalizations occurring yearly in the United States alone. As its course and outcomes vary widely, a critical knowledge gap in the field has been a lack of accurate prognostic tools to forecast AP patients' outcomes. Despite several published studies in the last three decades, the predictive performance of published prognostic models has been found to be suboptimal. Recently, non-regression machine learning models (ML) have garnered intense interest in medicine for their potential for better predictive performance. Each year, an increasing number of AP models are being published. However, their methodologic quality relating to transparent reporting and risk of bias in study design has never been systematically appraised. Therefore, through collaboration between a group of clinicians and data scientists with appropriate content expertise, we will perform a systematic review of papers published between January 2021 and December 2023 containing artificial intelligence prognostic models in AP. To systematically assess these studies, the authors will leverage the CHARMS checklist, PROBAST tool for risk of bias assessment, and the most current version of the TRIPOD-AI. (Research Registry ( http://www.reviewregistry1727 .).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对急性胰腺炎机器学习预后模型的批判性评估:系统性综述方案。
急性胰腺炎(AP)是一种急性炎症性疾病,在全球范围内发病率越来越高,每年仅在美国就有 30 多万人住院治疗。由于胰腺炎的病程和预后千差万别,该领域的一个重要知识空白就是缺乏准确的预后工具来预测胰腺炎患者的预后。尽管在过去的三十年中发表了多项研究,但已发表的预后模型的预测效果并不理想。最近,非回归机器学习模型(ML)因其潜在的更好预测性能而在医学界引起了强烈关注。每年都有越来越多的非回归机器学习模型发表。然而,这些模型的方法学质量,包括报告的透明度和研究设计的偏倚风险,却从未得到过系统的评估。因此,我们将通过一组临床医生和数据科学家之间的合作,对 2021 年 1 月至 2023 年 12 月间发表的包含 AP 人工智能预后模型的论文进行系统性回顾。为了系统地评估这些研究,作者将利用 CHARMS 核对表、PROBAST 偏倚风险评估工具和最新版本的 TRIPOD-AI。(研究注册中心 ( http://www.reviewregistry1727 .)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews reporting model development and validation methods. Rehabilitation outcomes after comprehensive post-acute inpatient rehabilitation following moderate to severe acquired brain injury-study protocol for an overall prognosis study based on routinely collected health data. Validation of prognostic models predicting mortality or ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: a global individual participant data meta-analysis. Reported prevalence and comparison of diagnostic approaches for Candida africana: a systematic review with meta-analysis. The relative data hungriness of unpenalized and penalized logistic regression and ensemble-based machine learning methods: the case of calibration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1