Machine learning or traditional statistical methods for predictive modelling in perioperative medicine: A narrative review

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-19 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2025.111782
Jason Mann , Mathew Lyons , John O'Rourke , Simon Davies
{"title":"Machine learning or traditional statistical methods for predictive modelling in perioperative medicine: A narrative review","authors":"Jason Mann ,&nbsp;Mathew Lyons ,&nbsp;John O'Rourke ,&nbsp;Simon Davies","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2025.111782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Prediction of outcomes in perioperative medicine is key to decision-making and various prediction models have been created to help quantify and communicate those risks to both patients and clinicians. Increasingly, machine learning (ML) is being favoured over more traditional techniques to improve prediction of outcomes, however, the studies are of varying quality. It is also not known whether any increase in predictive performance using ML algorithms transpires into a clinically meaningful benefit. This coupled with the difficulty in interrogating ML algorithms is a potential cause of concern within the medical community. In this review, we provide a concise appraisal of studies which develop perioperative predictive ML models and compare predictive performance to traditional statistical models.</div><div>The search strategy, title and abstract screening, and full-text reviews produced 37 studies for data extraction. Initially designed as a systematic review but due to the heterogeneity of the population and outcomes, was written in the narrative.</div><div>Perioperative ML and traditional predictive models continue to be developed and published across a range of populations. This review highlights several studies which show that ML can enhance perioperative prediction models, although this is not universal, and performance for both methods remain context dependent. By focusing on relevant patient-centred outcomes, model interpretability, external validation, and maintaining high standards of reporting and methodological transparency, researchers can develop ML models alongside traditional methods to enhance clinical decision-making and improve patient care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"102 ","pages":"Article 111782"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095281802500042X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prediction of outcomes in perioperative medicine is key to decision-making and various prediction models have been created to help quantify and communicate those risks to both patients and clinicians. Increasingly, machine learning (ML) is being favoured over more traditional techniques to improve prediction of outcomes, however, the studies are of varying quality. It is also not known whether any increase in predictive performance using ML algorithms transpires into a clinically meaningful benefit. This coupled with the difficulty in interrogating ML algorithms is a potential cause of concern within the medical community. In this review, we provide a concise appraisal of studies which develop perioperative predictive ML models and compare predictive performance to traditional statistical models.
The search strategy, title and abstract screening, and full-text reviews produced 37 studies for data extraction. Initially designed as a systematic review but due to the heterogeneity of the population and outcomes, was written in the narrative.
Perioperative ML and traditional predictive models continue to be developed and published across a range of populations. This review highlights several studies which show that ML can enhance perioperative prediction models, although this is not universal, and performance for both methods remain context dependent. By focusing on relevant patient-centred outcomes, model interpretability, external validation, and maintaining high standards of reporting and methodological transparency, researchers can develop ML models alongside traditional methods to enhance clinical decision-making and improve patient care.
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
围手术期医学预测建模的机器学习或传统统计方法:叙述性回顾
围手术期医学结果的预测是决策的关键,各种预测模型已经创建,以帮助量化并向患者和临床医生传达这些风险。机器学习(ML)越来越受到传统技术的青睐,以提高预测结果的能力,然而,这些研究的质量参差不齐。也不知道使用ML算法的预测性能的任何增加是否会转化为临床有意义的益处。再加上质疑ML算法的困难,这是医学界关注的一个潜在原因。在这篇综述中,我们提供了一个简明的研究评估,开发围手术期预测ML模型,并比较预测性能与传统的统计模型。检索策略、标题和摘要筛选以及全文综述产生37项研究用于数据提取。最初的设计是作为一个系统的回顾,但由于人口和结果的异质性,被写在叙述。围手术期ML和传统的预测模型继续在一系列人群中开发和发表。这篇综述强调了几项研究,这些研究表明ML可以增强围手术期预测模型,尽管这不是普遍的,而且两种方法的性能仍然依赖于上下文。通过关注以患者为中心的相关结果、模型可解释性、外部验证以及保持高标准的报告和方法透明度,研究人员可以与传统方法一起开发ML模型,以增强临床决策并改善患者护理。
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
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
346
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained. The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.
期刊最新文献
Association of target-controlled versus manually controlled infusion with postoperative recovery outcomes in elderly cardiac surgery patients: an international multi-cohort study Will AI keep you out of trouble? An expert panel review of LLMs for hazardous regional anesthesia consults Incidence of phosphate abnormalities after cardiac surgery and their association with lactic acidosis: A cohort study from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group. Safety and efficacy of Suzetrigine (VX-548) for acute moderate to severe pain in adults; a systematic review and meta-analysis Ultrasonographic evaluation of gastric emptying and correlation of bowel preparation quality with different waiting times in patients undergoing colonoscopy with sedation: A randomized controlled clinical trial
×
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:604180095
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