{"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。
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.
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.