Evaluating machine learning models for sepsis prediction: A systematic review of methodologies.

IF 4.1 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES iScience Pub Date : 2021-12-20 eCollection Date: 2022-01-21 DOI:10.1016/j.isci.2021.103651
Hong-Fei Deng, Ming-Wei Sun, Yu Wang, Jun Zeng, Ting Yuan, Ting Li, Di-Huan Li, Wei Chen, Ping Zhou, Qi Wang, Hua Jiang
{"title":"Evaluating machine learning models for sepsis prediction: A systematic review of methodologies.","authors":"Hong-Fei Deng,&nbsp;Ming-Wei Sun,&nbsp;Yu Wang,&nbsp;Jun Zeng,&nbsp;Ting Yuan,&nbsp;Ting Li,&nbsp;Di-Huan Li,&nbsp;Wei Chen,&nbsp;Ping Zhou,&nbsp;Qi Wang,&nbsp;Hua Jiang","doi":"10.1016/j.isci.2021.103651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studies for sepsis prediction using machine learning are developing rapidly in medical science recently. In this review, we propose a set of new evaluation criteria and reporting standards to assess 21 qualified machine learning models for quality analysis based on PRISMA. Our assessment shows that (1.) the definition of sepsis is not consistent among the studies; (2.) data sources and data preprocessing methods, machine learning models, feature engineering, and inclusion types vary widely among the studies; (3.) the closer to the onset of sepsis, the higher the value of AUROC is; (4.) the improvement in AUROC is primarily due to using machine learning as a feature engineering tool; (5.) deep neural networks coupled with Sepsis-3 diagnostic criteria tend to yield better results on the time series data collected from patients with sepsis. The new evaluation criteria and reporting standards will facilitate the development of improved machine learning models for clinical applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":342,"journal":{"name":"iScience","volume":"25 1","pages":"103651"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7b/c5/main.PMC8741489.pdf","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iScience","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103651","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Studies for sepsis prediction using machine learning are developing rapidly in medical science recently. In this review, we propose a set of new evaluation criteria and reporting standards to assess 21 qualified machine learning models for quality analysis based on PRISMA. Our assessment shows that (1.) the definition of sepsis is not consistent among the studies; (2.) data sources and data preprocessing methods, machine learning models, feature engineering, and inclusion types vary widely among the studies; (3.) the closer to the onset of sepsis, the higher the value of AUROC is; (4.) the improvement in AUROC is primarily due to using machine learning as a feature engineering tool; (5.) deep neural networks coupled with Sepsis-3 diagnostic criteria tend to yield better results on the time series data collected from patients with sepsis. The new evaluation criteria and reporting standards will facilitate the development of improved machine learning models for clinical applications.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
评估败血症预测的机器学习模型:方法的系统回顾。
近年来,利用机器学习进行脓毒症预测的研究在医学领域发展迅速。在这篇综述中,我们提出了一套新的评估标准和报告标准,以评估21个基于PRISMA的质量分析合格的机器学习模型。我们的评估表明:(1)研究对脓毒症的定义不一致;(2)数据源和数据预处理方法、机器学习模型、特征工程和包含类型在研究中差异很大;(3)越接近脓毒症发病,AUROC值越高;(4) AUROC的改进主要是由于使用机器学习作为特征工程工具;(5)深度神经网络结合脓毒症-3诊断标准对脓毒症患者收集的时间序列数据往往产生更好的结果。新的评估标准和报告标准将促进临床应用的改进机器学习模型的发展。
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
iScience
iScience Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
1.70%
发文量
1972
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Science has many big remaining questions. To address them, we will need to work collaboratively and across disciplines. The goal of iScience is to help fuel that type of interdisciplinary thinking. iScience is a new open-access journal from Cell Press that provides a platform for original research in the life, physical, and earth sciences. The primary criterion for publication in iScience is a significant contribution to a relevant field combined with robust results and underlying methodology. The advances appearing in iScience include both fundamental and applied investigations across this interdisciplinary range of topic areas. To support transparency in scientific investigation, we are happy to consider replication studies and papers that describe negative results. We know you want your work to be published quickly and to be widely visible within your community and beyond. With the strong international reputation of Cell Press behind it, publication in iScience will help your work garner the attention and recognition it merits. Like all Cell Press journals, iScience prioritizes rapid publication. Our editorial team pays special attention to high-quality author service and to efficient, clear-cut decisions based on the information available within the manuscript. iScience taps into the expertise across Cell Press journals and selected partners to inform our editorial decisions and help publish your science in a timely and seamless way.
期刊最新文献
IGFBP3 induced by the TGF-β/EGFRvIII transactivation contributes to the malignant phenotype of glioblastoma The neural basis of habit formation measured in goal-directed response switching Integrative insights into fatty acid metabolism in diabetic cardiomyopathy: From molecular mechanisms to therapeutic strategies Identification of ADAR1i-124: The first effective A-to-I RNA editing inhibitor with promising cancer therapeutic potential The prognostic nutritional index improves risk stratification for acute pulmonary embolism
×
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