M. Montazeri, Ali Afraz, M. Montazeri, Sadegh Nejatzadeh, F. Rahimi, Mohsen Taherian, Mohadeseh Montazeri, L. Ahmadian
{"title":"人工智能和机器学习在COVID-19感染诊断和预后中的应用综述","authors":"M. Montazeri, Ali Afraz, M. Montazeri, Sadegh Nejatzadeh, F. Rahimi, Mohsen Taherian, Mohadeseh Montazeri, L. Ahmadian","doi":"10.30699/fhi.v10i1.321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Our aim in this study was to summarize information on the use of intelligent models for predicting and diagnosing the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to help early and timely diagnosis of the disease.Material and Methods: A systematic literature search included articles published until 20 April 2020 in PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE, ProQuest, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv databases. The search strategy consisted of two groups of keywords: A) Novel coronavirus, B) Machine learning. Two reviewers independently assessed original papers to determine eligibility for inclusion in this review. Studies were critically reviewed for risk of bias using prediction model risk of bias assessment tool.Results: We gathered 1650 articles through database searches. After the full-text assessment 31 articles were included. Neural networks and deep neural network variants were the most popular machine learning type. Of the five models that authors claimed were externally validated, we considered external validation only for four of them. Area under the curve (AUC) in internal validation of prognostic models varied from .94 to .97. AUC in diagnostic models varied from 0.84 to 0.99, and AUC in external validation of diagnostic models varied from 0.73 to 0.94. Our analysis finds all but two studies have a high risk of bias due to various reasons like a low number of participants and lack of external validation.Conclusion: Diagnostic and prognostic models for COVID-19 show good to excellent discriminative performance. However, these models are at high risk of bias because of various reasons like a low number of participants and lack of external validation. Future studies should address these concerns. Sharing data and experiences for the development, validation, and updating of COVID-19 related prediction models is needed. ","PeriodicalId":154611,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Health Informatics","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Diagnosis and Prognosis of COVID-19 infection: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"M. Montazeri, Ali Afraz, M. Montazeri, Sadegh Nejatzadeh, F. Rahimi, Mohsen Taherian, Mohadeseh Montazeri, L. Ahmadian\",\"doi\":\"10.30699/fhi.v10i1.321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Our aim in this study was to summarize information on the use of intelligent models for predicting and diagnosing the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to help early and timely diagnosis of the disease.Material and Methods: A systematic literature search included articles published until 20 April 2020 in PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE, ProQuest, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv databases. The search strategy consisted of two groups of keywords: A) Novel coronavirus, B) Machine learning. Two reviewers independently assessed original papers to determine eligibility for inclusion in this review. Studies were critically reviewed for risk of bias using prediction model risk of bias assessment tool.Results: We gathered 1650 articles through database searches. After the full-text assessment 31 articles were included. Neural networks and deep neural network variants were the most popular machine learning type. Of the five models that authors claimed were externally validated, we considered external validation only for four of them. Area under the curve (AUC) in internal validation of prognostic models varied from .94 to .97. AUC in diagnostic models varied from 0.84 to 0.99, and AUC in external validation of diagnostic models varied from 0.73 to 0.94. Our analysis finds all but two studies have a high risk of bias due to various reasons like a low number of participants and lack of external validation.Conclusion: Diagnostic and prognostic models for COVID-19 show good to excellent discriminative performance. However, these models are at high risk of bias because of various reasons like a low number of participants and lack of external validation. Future studies should address these concerns. Sharing data and experiences for the development, validation, and updating of COVID-19 related prediction models is needed. \",\"PeriodicalId\":154611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Health Informatics\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Health Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30699/fhi.v10i1.321\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Health Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30699/fhi.v10i1.321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
前言:本研究旨在总结新型冠状病毒病(COVID-19)智能预测诊断模型的应用信息,以帮助早期和及时诊断该疾病。材料和方法:系统文献检索包括截至2020年4月20日在PubMed、Web of Science、IEEE、ProQuest、Scopus、bioRxiv和medRxiv数据库中发表的文章。搜索策略包括两组关键词:A)新型冠状病毒,B)机器学习。两位审稿人独立评估原始论文以确定纳入本综述的资格。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具对研究进行了严格的偏倚风险评估。结果:我们通过数据库检索收集了1650篇文章。经全文评估后,纳入31篇文章。神经网络和深度神经网络变体是最流行的机器学习类型。在作者声称经过外部验证的五个模型中,我们只考虑了其中四个模型的外部验证。预测模型内部验证的曲线下面积(AUC)从0.94到0.97不等。诊断模型的AUC范围为0.84 ~ 0.99,诊断模型外部验证的AUC范围为0.73 ~ 0.94。我们的分析发现,除了两项研究外,由于参与者数量少和缺乏外部验证等各种原因,所有研究都有很高的偏倚风险。结论:新型冠状病毒肺炎的诊断和预后模型具有较好的判别性能。然而,由于参与者数量少、缺乏外部验证等各种原因,这些模型存在较高的偏倚风险。未来的研究应该解决这些问题。需要共享数据和经验,以开发、验证和更新COVID-19相关预测模型。
Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Diagnosis and Prognosis of COVID-19 infection: A systematic review
Introduction: Our aim in this study was to summarize information on the use of intelligent models for predicting and diagnosing the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to help early and timely diagnosis of the disease.Material and Methods: A systematic literature search included articles published until 20 April 2020 in PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE, ProQuest, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv databases. The search strategy consisted of two groups of keywords: A) Novel coronavirus, B) Machine learning. Two reviewers independently assessed original papers to determine eligibility for inclusion in this review. Studies were critically reviewed for risk of bias using prediction model risk of bias assessment tool.Results: We gathered 1650 articles through database searches. After the full-text assessment 31 articles were included. Neural networks and deep neural network variants were the most popular machine learning type. Of the five models that authors claimed were externally validated, we considered external validation only for four of them. Area under the curve (AUC) in internal validation of prognostic models varied from .94 to .97. AUC in diagnostic models varied from 0.84 to 0.99, and AUC in external validation of diagnostic models varied from 0.73 to 0.94. Our analysis finds all but two studies have a high risk of bias due to various reasons like a low number of participants and lack of external validation.Conclusion: Diagnostic and prognostic models for COVID-19 show good to excellent discriminative performance. However, these models are at high risk of bias because of various reasons like a low number of participants and lack of external validation. Future studies should address these concerns. Sharing data and experiences for the development, validation, and updating of COVID-19 related prediction models is needed.