Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Stroke Prognosis and Prediction in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnostics Pub Date : 2024-10-26 DOI:10.3390/diagnostics14212391
Bill Goh, Sonu M M Bhaskar
{"title":"Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Stroke Prognosis and Prediction in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Bill Goh, Sonu M M Bhaskar","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics14212391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objective: </strong>Atrial fibrillation (AF) complicates the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), necessitating precise predictive models to enhance clinical outcomes. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of machine learning (ML) models in three key areas: stroke prognosis in AF patients, stroke prediction in AF patients, and AF prediction in stroke patients. The study aims to assess the accuracy and variability of ML models in forecasting AIS outcomes and detecting AF in stroke patients, while exploring the clinical benefits and limitations of integrating these models into practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to June 2024, selecting studies that evaluated ML accuracy in stroke prognosis and prediction in AF patients and AF prediction in stroke patients. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers, with random-effects modeling applied to estimate pooled accuracy metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included twenty-four studies comprising 7,391,645 patients, categorized into groups for stroke prognosis in AF patients (eight studies), stroke prediction in AF patients (thirteen studies), and AF prediction in stroke patients (three studies). The pooled AUROC was 0.79 for stroke prognosis and 0.68 for stroke prediction in AF, with higher accuracy noted in short-term predictions. The mean AUROC across studies was 0.75, with models such as Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) and Random Forest (RF) showing superior performance. For stroke prognosis in AF, the mean AUROC was 0.78, whereas stroke prediction yielded a mean AUROC of 0.73. AF prediction post-stroke had an average AUROC of 0.75. These findings indicate moderate predictive capability of ML models, underscoring the need for further refinement and standardization. The absence of comprehensive sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) metrics limited the ability to conduct full meta-analytic modeling.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While ML models demonstrate potential for enhancing stroke prognosis and AF prediction, they have yet to meet the clinical standards required for widespread adoption. Future efforts should focus on refining these models and validating them across diverse populations to improve their clinical utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"14 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212391","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objective: Atrial fibrillation (AF) complicates the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), necessitating precise predictive models to enhance clinical outcomes. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of machine learning (ML) models in three key areas: stroke prognosis in AF patients, stroke prediction in AF patients, and AF prediction in stroke patients. The study aims to assess the accuracy and variability of ML models in forecasting AIS outcomes and detecting AF in stroke patients, while exploring the clinical benefits and limitations of integrating these models into practice.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to June 2024, selecting studies that evaluated ML accuracy in stroke prognosis and prediction in AF patients and AF prediction in stroke patients. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers, with random-effects modeling applied to estimate pooled accuracy metrics.

Results: The meta-analysis included twenty-four studies comprising 7,391,645 patients, categorized into groups for stroke prognosis in AF patients (eight studies), stroke prediction in AF patients (thirteen studies), and AF prediction in stroke patients (three studies). The pooled AUROC was 0.79 for stroke prognosis and 0.68 for stroke prediction in AF, with higher accuracy noted in short-term predictions. The mean AUROC across studies was 0.75, with models such as Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) and Random Forest (RF) showing superior performance. For stroke prognosis in AF, the mean AUROC was 0.78, whereas stroke prediction yielded a mean AUROC of 0.73. AF prediction post-stroke had an average AUROC of 0.75. These findings indicate moderate predictive capability of ML models, underscoring the need for further refinement and standardization. The absence of comprehensive sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) metrics limited the ability to conduct full meta-analytic modeling.

Conclusions: While ML models demonstrate potential for enhancing stroke prognosis and AF prediction, they have yet to meet the clinical standards required for widespread adoption. Future efforts should focus on refining these models and validating them across diverse populations to improve their clinical utility.

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
评估用于心房颤动患者中风预后和预测的机器学习模型:综合元分析
背景/目的:心房颤动(AF)使急性缺血性中风(AIS)的治疗变得复杂,因此需要精确的预测模型来提高临床疗效。本荟萃分析评估了机器学习(ML)模型在三个关键领域的功效:房颤患者的卒中预后、房颤患者的卒中预测以及卒中患者的房颤预测。该研究旨在评估 ML 模型在预测 AIS 结果和检测卒中患者房颤方面的准确性和可变性,同时探讨将这些模型纳入临床实践的临床益处和局限性:我们对截至 2024 年 6 月的 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库进行了系统检索,选择了评估 ML 在脑卒中预后和房颤患者预测中的准确性以及脑卒中患者房颤预测中的准确性的研究。数据提取和质量评估由两名审稿人独立完成,并采用随机效应模型估算汇总的准确性指标:荟萃分析包括24项研究,共7,391,645名患者,分为房颤患者卒中预后组(8项研究)、房颤患者卒中预测组(13项研究)和房颤患者卒中预测组(3项研究)。中风预后的汇总 AUROC 为 0.79,房颤患者中风预测的汇总 AUROC 为 0.68,短期预测的准确性更高。各项研究的平均 AUROC 为 0.75,其中极端梯度提升(XGB)和随机森林(RF)等模型表现更优。对于心房颤动的中风预后,平均 AUROC 为 0.78,而中风预测的平均 AUROC 为 0.73。中风后房颤预测的平均 AUROC 为 0.75。这些研究结果表明 ML 模型的预测能力一般,强调了进一步完善和标准化的必要性。缺乏全面的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)指标限制了进行全面荟萃分析建模的能力:结论:虽然 ML 模型在改善卒中预后和房颤预测方面具有潜力,但它们尚未达到广泛应用所需的临床标准。未来的工作重点应该是完善这些模型并在不同人群中进行验证,以提高其临床实用性。
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
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
期刊最新文献
RETRACTED: Monda et al. Left Ventricular Non-Compaction in Children: Aetiology and Diagnostic Criteria. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 115. Compound Heterozygous Variants in the IFT140 Gene Associated with Skeletal Ciliopathies. A Novel Method for 3D Lung Tumor Reconstruction Using Generative Models. Agreement Between Resting Energy Expenditure Predictive Formulas and Indirect Calorimetry in Non-Dialysis Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease. Multi-Scale 3D Cephalometric Landmark Detection Based on Direct Regression with 3D CNN Architectures.
×
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