用于败血症预测的机器学习算法的诊断性能:最新荟萃分析。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3233/THC-240087
Hongru Zhang, Chen Wang, Ning Yang
{"title":"用于败血症预测的机器学习算法的诊断性能:最新荟萃分析。","authors":"Hongru Zhang, Chen Wang, Ning Yang","doi":"10.3233/THC-240087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early identification of sepsis has been shown to significantly improve patient prognosis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, covering literature up to December 2023. The keywords included machine learning, sepsis and prediction. After screening, data were extracted and analysed from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Key evaluation metrics included sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included a total of 21 studies with a data sample size of 4,158,941. Overall, the pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-0.90; P< 0.001; I2= 99.7%), the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.86-0.94; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.91-0.96). The subgroup analysis revealed that in the emergency department setting (6 studies), the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI = 0.68-0.87; P< 0.001; I2= 99.6%), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.92-0.96). In the Intensive Care Unit setting (11 studies), the sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.75-0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 98.3%), the specificity was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75-0.92; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.91-0.95). Due to the limited number of studies in the in-hospital and mixed settings (n< 3), no pooled analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Machine-learning algorithms have demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy in predicting the occurrence of sepsis, showing potential for clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic performance of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction: An updated meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hongru Zhang, Chen Wang, Ning Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/THC-240087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early identification of sepsis has been shown to significantly improve patient prognosis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, covering literature up to December 2023. The keywords included machine learning, sepsis and prediction. After screening, data were extracted and analysed from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Key evaluation metrics included sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included a total of 21 studies with a data sample size of 4,158,941. Overall, the pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-0.90; P< 0.001; I2= 99.7%), the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.86-0.94; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.91-0.96). The subgroup analysis revealed that in the emergency department setting (6 studies), the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI = 0.68-0.87; P< 0.001; I2= 99.6%), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.92-0.96). In the Intensive Care Unit setting (11 studies), the sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.75-0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 98.3%), the specificity was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75-0.92; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.91-0.95). Due to the limited number of studies in the in-hospital and mixed settings (n< 3), no pooled analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Machine-learning algorithms have demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy in predicting the occurrence of sepsis, showing potential for clinical application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-240087\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-240087","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:早期识别败血症可显著改善患者预后:脓毒症的早期识别已被证明能显著改善患者的预后:因此,本荟萃分析旨在系统评估脓毒症预测机器学习算法的诊断效果:在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库中进行了系统检索,涵盖截至 2023 年 12 月的文献。关键词包括机器学习、败血症和预测。经过筛选,从符合纳入标准的研究中提取数据并进行分析。主要评价指标包括灵敏度、特异性和诊断准确性曲线下面积(AUC):荟萃分析共纳入 21 项研究,数据样本量为 4,158,941 个。总体而言,汇总灵敏度为 0.82(95% 置信区间 [CI] = 0.70-0.90;P< 0.001;I2=99.7%),特异度为 0.91(95% CI = 0.86-0.94;P< 0.001;I2=99.9%),AUC 为 0.94(95% CI = 0.91-0.96)。亚组分析显示,在急诊科环境中(6 项研究),汇总灵敏度为 0.79(95% CI = 0.68-0.87;P< 0.001;I2= 99.6%),特异性为 0.94(95% CI 0.90-0.97;P< 0.001;I2= 99.9%),AUC 为 0.94(95% CI = 0.92-0.96)。在重症监护室环境中(11 项研究),灵敏度为 0.91(95% CI = 0.75-0.97;P< 0.001;I2= 98.3%),特异性为 0.85(95% CI = 0.75-0.92;P< 0.001;I2= 99.9%),AUC 为 0.93(95% CI = 0.91-0.95)。由于院内和混合环境中的研究数量有限(n< 3),因此没有进行汇总分析:机器学习算法在预测败血症的发生方面表现出了极高的诊断准确性,显示出了临床应用的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Diagnostic performance of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction: An updated meta-analysis.

Background: Early identification of sepsis has been shown to significantly improve patient prognosis.

Objective: Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction.

Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, covering literature up to December 2023. The keywords included machine learning, sepsis and prediction. After screening, data were extracted and analysed from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Key evaluation metrics included sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy.

Results: The meta-analysis included a total of 21 studies with a data sample size of 4,158,941. Overall, the pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-0.90; P< 0.001; I2= 99.7%), the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.86-0.94; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.91-0.96). The subgroup analysis revealed that in the emergency department setting (6 studies), the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI = 0.68-0.87; P< 0.001; I2= 99.6%), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.92-0.96). In the Intensive Care Unit setting (11 studies), the sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.75-0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 98.3%), the specificity was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75-0.92; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.91-0.95). Due to the limited number of studies in the in-hospital and mixed settings (n< 3), no pooled analysis was performed.

Conclusion: Machine-learning algorithms have demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy in predicting the occurrence of sepsis, showing potential for clinical application.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Mentorship in academic musculoskeletal radiology: perspectives from a junior faculty member. Underlying synovial sarcoma undiagnosed for more than 20 years in a patient with regional pain: a case report. Sacrococcygeal chordoma with spontaneous regression due to a large hemorrhagic component. Associations of cumulative voriconazole dose, treatment duration, and alkaline phosphatase with voriconazole-induced periostitis. Can the presence of SLAP-5 lesions be predicted by using the critical shoulder angle in traumatic anterior shoulder instability?
×
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