Banerjee, A; Chen, S; Fatemifar, G; Zeina, M; Lumbers, RT; Mielke, J; Gill, S; ... Hemingway, H; + view all Banerjee, A; Chen, S; Fatemifar, G; Zeina, M; Lumbers, RT; Mielke, J; Gill, S; Kotecha, D; Freitag, DF; Denaxas, S; Hemingway, H; - view fewer (2021) Machine learning for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure, acute coronary syndromes and atrial fibrillation: systematic review of validity and clinical utility. BMC Medicine , 19 (1) , Article 85. 10.1186/s12916-021-01940-7.

Preview

Text s12916-021-01940-7.pdf - Published Version Download (4MB) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in research for subtype definition and risk prediction, particularly in cardiovascular diseases. No existing ML models are routinely used for cardiovascular disease management, and their phase of clinical utility is unknown, partly due to a lack of clear criteria. We evaluated ML for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: For ML studies of subtype definition and risk prediction, we conducted a systematic review in HF, ACS and AF, using PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science from January 2000 until December 2019. By adapting published criteria for diagnostic and prognostic studies, we developed a seven-domain, ML-specific checklist. RESULTS: Of 5918 studies identified, 97 were included. Across studies for subtype definition (n = 40) and risk prediction (n = 57), there was variation in data source, population size (median 606 and median 6769), clinical setting (outpatient, inpatient, different departments), number of covariates (median 19 and median 48) and ML methods. All studies were single disease, most were North American (n = 61/97) and only 14 studies combined definition and risk prediction. Subtype definition and risk prediction studies respectively had limitations in development (e.g. 15.0% and 78.9% of studies related to patient benefit; 15.0% and 15.8% had low patient selection bias), validation (12.5% and 5.3% externally validated) and impact (32.5% and 91.2% improved outcome prediction; no effectiveness or cost-effectiveness evaluations). CONCLUSIONS: Studies of ML in HF, ACS and AF are limited by number and type of included covariates, ML methods, population size, country, clinical setting and focus on single diseases, not overlap or multimorbidity. Clinical utility and implementation rely on improvements in development, validation and impact, facilitated by simple checklists. We provide clear steps prior to safe implementation of machine learning in clinical practice for cardiovascular diseases and other disease areas.

Download activity - last month

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item