使用机器学习的医疗保健支出的多变量预测模型:系统回顾的协议。

Andrew W Huang, Martin Haslberger, Neto Coulibaly, Omar Galárraga, Arman Oganisian, Lazaros Belbasis, Orestis A Panagiotou
{"title":"使用机器学习的医疗保健支出的多变量预测模型:系统回顾的协议。","authors":"Andrew W Huang,&nbsp;Martin Haslberger,&nbsp;Neto Coulibaly,&nbsp;Omar Galárraga,&nbsp;Arman Oganisian,&nbsp;Lazaros Belbasis,&nbsp;Orestis A Panagiotou","doi":"10.1186/s41512-022-00119-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With rising cost pressures on health care systems, machine-learning (ML)-based algorithms are increasingly used to predict health care costs. Despite their potential advantages, the successful implementation of these methods could be undermined by biases introduced in the design, conduct, or analysis of studies seeking to develop and/or validate ML models. The utility of such models may also be negatively affected by poor reporting of these studies. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the reporting quality, methodological characteristics, and risk of bias of ML-based prediction models for individual-level health care spending.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We will systematically search PubMed and Embase to identify studies developing, updating, or validating ML-based models to predict an individual's health care spending for any medical condition, over any time period, and in any setting. We will exclude prediction models of aggregate-level health care spending, models used to infer causality, models using radiomics or speech parameters, models of non-clinically validated predictors (e.g., genomics), and cost-effectiveness analyses without predicting individual-level health care spending. We will extract data based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS), previously published research, and relevant recommendations. We will assess the adherence of ML-based studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and examine the inclusion of transparency and reproducibility indicators (e.g. statements on data sharing). To assess the risk of bias, we will apply the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Findings will be stratified by study design, ML methods used, population characteristics, and medical field.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our systematic review will appraise the quality, reporting, and risk of bias of ML-based models for individualized health care cost prediction. This review will provide an overview of the available models and give insights into the strengths and limitations of using ML methods for the prediction of health spending.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":" ","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8943988/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multivariable prediction models for health care spending using machine learning: a protocol of a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew W Huang,&nbsp;Martin Haslberger,&nbsp;Neto Coulibaly,&nbsp;Omar Galárraga,&nbsp;Arman Oganisian,&nbsp;Lazaros Belbasis,&nbsp;Orestis A Panagiotou\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41512-022-00119-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With rising cost pressures on health care systems, machine-learning (ML)-based algorithms are increasingly used to predict health care costs. Despite their potential advantages, the successful implementation of these methods could be undermined by biases introduced in the design, conduct, or analysis of studies seeking to develop and/or validate ML models. The utility of such models may also be negatively affected by poor reporting of these studies. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the reporting quality, methodological characteristics, and risk of bias of ML-based prediction models for individual-level health care spending.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We will systematically search PubMed and Embase to identify studies developing, updating, or validating ML-based models to predict an individual's health care spending for any medical condition, over any time period, and in any setting. We will exclude prediction models of aggregate-level health care spending, models used to infer causality, models using radiomics or speech parameters, models of non-clinically validated predictors (e.g., genomics), and cost-effectiveness analyses without predicting individual-level health care spending. We will extract data based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS), previously published research, and relevant recommendations. We will assess the adherence of ML-based studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and examine the inclusion of transparency and reproducibility indicators (e.g. statements on data sharing). To assess the risk of bias, we will apply the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Findings will be stratified by study design, ML methods used, population characteristics, and medical field.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our systematic review will appraise the quality, reporting, and risk of bias of ML-based models for individualized health care cost prediction. This review will provide an overview of the available models and give insights into the strengths and limitations of using ML methods for the prediction of health spending.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8943988/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-022-00119-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-022-00119-9","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

背景:随着医疗保健系统成本压力的增加,基于机器学习(ML)的算法越来越多地用于预测医疗保健成本。尽管这些方法具有潜在的优势,但在设计、实施或分析寻求开发和/或验证ML模型的研究时引入的偏差可能会破坏这些方法的成功实施。这些模型的效用也可能受到这些研究报告不足的负面影响。在这篇系统综述中,我们旨在评估基于ml的个人医疗支出预测模型的报告质量、方法学特征和偏倚风险。方法:我们将系统地检索PubMed和Embase,以确定正在开发、更新或验证基于ml的模型的研究,以预测个人在任何医疗状况、任何时间段和任何环境下的医疗保健支出。我们将排除总体水平医疗保健支出的预测模型,用于推断因果关系的模型,使用放射组学或语言参数的模型,非临床验证预测因子(例如基因组学)的模型,以及没有预测个人水平医疗保健支出的成本效益分析。我们将根据预测建模研究系统评价关键评估和数据提取清单(CHARMS)、先前发表的研究和相关建议提取数据。我们将评估基于ml的研究对个体预后或诊断多变量预测模型透明报告(TRIPOD)声明的依从性,并检查透明度和可重复性指标的纳入情况(例如关于数据共享的声明)。为了评估偏倚风险,我们将应用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)。研究结果将根据研究设计、使用的ML方法、人群特征和医学领域进行分层。讨论:我们的系统综述将评估基于ml的个性化医疗成本预测模型的质量、报告和偏倚风险。本综述将概述现有模型,并深入了解使用机器学习方法预测卫生支出的优势和局限性。
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
Multivariable prediction models for health care spending using machine learning: a protocol of a systematic review.

Background: With rising cost pressures on health care systems, machine-learning (ML)-based algorithms are increasingly used to predict health care costs. Despite their potential advantages, the successful implementation of these methods could be undermined by biases introduced in the design, conduct, or analysis of studies seeking to develop and/or validate ML models. The utility of such models may also be negatively affected by poor reporting of these studies. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the reporting quality, methodological characteristics, and risk of bias of ML-based prediction models for individual-level health care spending.

Methods: We will systematically search PubMed and Embase to identify studies developing, updating, or validating ML-based models to predict an individual's health care spending for any medical condition, over any time period, and in any setting. We will exclude prediction models of aggregate-level health care spending, models used to infer causality, models using radiomics or speech parameters, models of non-clinically validated predictors (e.g., genomics), and cost-effectiveness analyses without predicting individual-level health care spending. We will extract data based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS), previously published research, and relevant recommendations. We will assess the adherence of ML-based studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and examine the inclusion of transparency and reproducibility indicators (e.g. statements on data sharing). To assess the risk of bias, we will apply the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Findings will be stratified by study design, ML methods used, population characteristics, and medical field.

Discussion: Our systematic review will appraise the quality, reporting, and risk of bias of ML-based models for individualized health care cost prediction. This review will provide an overview of the available models and give insights into the strengths and limitations of using ML methods for the prediction of health spending.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Models for predicting risk of endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews reporting model development and validation methods. Rehabilitation outcomes after comprehensive post-acute inpatient rehabilitation following moderate to severe acquired brain injury-study protocol for an overall prognosis study based on routinely collected health data. Validation of prognostic models predicting mortality or ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: a global individual participant data meta-analysis. Reported prevalence and comparison of diagnostic approaches for Candida africana: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
×
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