机器学习对心力衰竭患者住院死亡风险的预测价值:系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Clinical Cardiology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1002/clc.70071
Liyuan Yan, Jinlong Zhang, Le Chen, Zongcheng Zhu, Xiaodong Sheng, Guanqun Zheng, Jiamin Yuan
{"title":"机器学习对心力衰竭患者住院死亡风险的预测价值:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Liyuan Yan, Jinlong Zhang, Le Chen, Zongcheng Zhu, Xiaodong Sheng, Guanqun Zheng, Jiamin Yuan","doi":"10.1002/clc.70071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficiency of machine learning (ML) based predictive models in predicting in-hospital mortality for heart failure (HF) patients is a topic of debate. In this context, this study's objective is to conduct a meta-analysis to compare and assess existing prognostic models designed for predicting in-hospital mortality in HF patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of databases was conducted, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 2023. To ensure comprehensiveness, we performed an additional search in June 2023. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to assess the validity and reliability of ML models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis incorporated 28 studies involving a total of 106 predictive models based on 14 different ML techniques. In the training data set, these models showed a combined C-index of 0.781, sensitivity of 0.56, and specificity of 0.94. In the validation data set, the models exhibited a combined C-index of 0.758, sensitivity of 0.57, and specificity of 0.84. Logistic regression (LR) was the most frequently used ML algorithm. LR models in the training set had a combined C-index of 0.795, sensitivity of 0.63, and specificity of 0.85, and these measures for LR models in the validation set were 0.751, 0.66, and 0.79, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study indicates that although ML is increasingly being leveraged to predict in-hospital mortality for HF patients, the predictive performance remains suboptimal. Although these models have relatively high C-index and specificity, their ability to predict positive events is limited, as indicated by their low sensitivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":10201,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Cardiology","volume":"48 1","pages":"e70071"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11670054/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive Value of Machine Learning for the Risk of In-Hospital Death in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Liyuan Yan, Jinlong Zhang, Le Chen, Zongcheng Zhu, Xiaodong Sheng, Guanqun Zheng, Jiamin Yuan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/clc.70071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficiency of machine learning (ML) based predictive models in predicting in-hospital mortality for heart failure (HF) patients is a topic of debate. In this context, this study's objective is to conduct a meta-analysis to compare and assess existing prognostic models designed for predicting in-hospital mortality in HF patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of databases was conducted, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 2023. To ensure comprehensiveness, we performed an additional search in June 2023. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to assess the validity and reliability of ML models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis incorporated 28 studies involving a total of 106 predictive models based on 14 different ML techniques. In the training data set, these models showed a combined C-index of 0.781, sensitivity of 0.56, and specificity of 0.94. In the validation data set, the models exhibited a combined C-index of 0.758, sensitivity of 0.57, and specificity of 0.84. Logistic regression (LR) was the most frequently used ML algorithm. LR models in the training set had a combined C-index of 0.795, sensitivity of 0.63, and specificity of 0.85, and these measures for LR models in the validation set were 0.751, 0.66, and 0.79, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study indicates that although ML is increasingly being leveraged to predict in-hospital mortality for HF patients, the predictive performance remains suboptimal. Although these models have relatively high C-index and specificity, their ability to predict positive events is limited, as indicated by their low sensitivity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Cardiology\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"e70071\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11670054/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.70071\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.70071","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于机器学习(ML)的预测模型在预测心力衰竭(HF)患者住院死亡率方面的效率是一个有争议的话题。在此背景下,本研究的目的是进行荟萃分析,比较和评估用于预测心衰患者住院死亡率的现有预后模型。方法:系统检索截至2023年1月的PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library等数据库。为了确保全面性,我们在2023年6月进行了额外的搜索。采用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具评估ML模型的效度和信度。结果:我们的分析纳入了28项研究,涉及基于14种不同ML技术的106个预测模型。在训练数据集中,这些模型的综合c指数为0.781,敏感性为0.56,特异性为0.94。在验证数据集中,模型的综合c指数为0.758,敏感性为0.57,特异性为0.84。逻辑回归(LR)是最常用的ML算法。训练集LR模型的综合c指数为0.795,敏感性为0.63,特异性为0.85,验证集LR模型的综合c指数分别为0.751、0.66和0.79。结论:我们的研究表明,尽管ML越来越多地被用于预测心衰患者的住院死亡率,但预测效果仍然不理想。虽然这些模型具有较高的c指数和特异性,但它们预测阳性事件的能力有限,这表明它们的敏感性较低。
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
Predictive Value of Machine Learning for the Risk of In-Hospital Death in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The efficiency of machine learning (ML) based predictive models in predicting in-hospital mortality for heart failure (HF) patients is a topic of debate. In this context, this study's objective is to conduct a meta-analysis to compare and assess existing prognostic models designed for predicting in-hospital mortality in HF patients.

Methods: A systematic search of databases was conducted, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 2023. To ensure comprehensiveness, we performed an additional search in June 2023. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to assess the validity and reliability of ML models.

Results: Our analysis incorporated 28 studies involving a total of 106 predictive models based on 14 different ML techniques. In the training data set, these models showed a combined C-index of 0.781, sensitivity of 0.56, and specificity of 0.94. In the validation data set, the models exhibited a combined C-index of 0.758, sensitivity of 0.57, and specificity of 0.84. Logistic regression (LR) was the most frequently used ML algorithm. LR models in the training set had a combined C-index of 0.795, sensitivity of 0.63, and specificity of 0.85, and these measures for LR models in the validation set were 0.751, 0.66, and 0.79, respectively.

Conclusions: Our study indicates that although ML is increasingly being leveraged to predict in-hospital mortality for HF patients, the predictive performance remains suboptimal. Although these models have relatively high C-index and specificity, their ability to predict positive events is limited, as indicated by their low sensitivity.

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
Clinical Cardiology
Clinical Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
189
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Cardiology provides a fully Gold Open Access forum for the publication of original clinical research, as well as brief reviews of diagnostic and therapeutic issues in cardiovascular medicine and cardiovascular surgery. The journal includes Clinical Investigations, Reviews, free standing editorials and commentaries, and bonus online-only content. The journal also publishes supplements, Expert Panel Discussions, sponsored clinical Reviews, Trial Designs, and Quality and Outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Heart Failure Is Closely Associated With the Expression Characteristics of Type I Interferon-Related Genes. Digital Devices for Arrhythmia Detection: What Is Still Missing? "Letter to the Editor: A Correction to [Outcomes of Bolus Dose Furosemide Versus Continuous Infusion in Patients With Acute Decompensated Left Ventricular Failure and Atrial Fibrillation]". Predictive Value of Machine Learning for the Risk of In-Hospital Death in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Unmasking the Hidden Threat: The Role of Left Ventricular Subendocardial Involvement in Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease.
×
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