Literature DB >> 31055722

Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review.

Dennis Shung1, Michael Simonov2, Mark Gentry2, Benjamin Au2, Loren Laine2,3.   

Abstract

Risk stratification of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is recommended, but current risk assessment tools have variable performance. Machine learning (ML) has promise to improve risk assessment. We performed a systematic review to evaluate studies utilizing ML techniques for GIB. Bibliographic databases and conference abstracts were searched for studies with a population of overt GIB that used an ML algorithm with outcomes of mortality, rebleeding, hemostatic intervention, and/or hospital stay. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text studies, and extracted data from included studies. Risk of bias was assessed with an adapted Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were the primary assessment of performance with AUC ≥ 0.80 predefined as an acceptable threshold of good performance. Fourteen studies with 30 assessments of ML models met inclusion criteria. No study had low risk of bias. Median AUC reported in validation datasets for predefined outcomes of mortality, intervention, or rebleeding was 0.84 (range 0.40-0.98). AUCs were higher with artificial neural networks (median 0.93, range 0.78-0.98) than other ML models (0.81, range 0.40-0.92). ML performed better than clinical risk scores (Glasgow-Blatchford, Rockall, Child-Pugh, MELD) for mortality in upper GIB. Limitations include heterogeneity of ML models, inconsistent comparisons of ML models with clinical risk scores, and high risk of bias. ML generally provided good-excellent prognostic performance in patients with GIB, and artificial neural networks tended to outperform other ML models. ML was better than clinical risk scores for mortality in upper GIB.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastrointestinal bleeding; Machine learning; Risk assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31055722     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05645-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  39 in total

Review 1.  Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment.

Authors:  Jayawant N Mandrekar
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 15.609

2.  Automated, electronic alerts for acute kidney injury: a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  F Perry Wilson; Michael Shashaty; Jeffrey Testani; Iram Aqeel; Yuliya Borovskiy; Susan S Ellenberg; Harold I Feldman; Hilda Fernandez; Yevgeniy Gitelman; Jennie Lin; Dan Negoianu; Chirag R Parikh; Peter P Reese; Richard Urbani; Barry Fuchs
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  Management of patients with ulcer bleeding.

Authors:  Loren Laine; Dennis M Jensen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  A simplified prognostic model to predict mortality in patients with acute variceal bleeding.

Authors:  Han Hee Lee; Jae Myung Park; Seunghoon Han; Sung Min Park; Hee Yeon Kim; Jung Hwan Oh; Chang Wook Kim; Seung Kew Yoon; Myung-Gyu Choi
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 4.088

5.  Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

Authors:  T A Rockall; R F Logan; H B Devlin; T C Northfield
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Upper digestive bleeding in cirrhosis. Post-therapeutic outcome and prognostic indicators.

Authors:  Gennaro D'Amico; Roberto De Franchis
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 17.425

7.  Outpatient management of patients with low-risk upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage: multicentre validation and prospective evaluation.

Authors:  A J Stanley; D Ashley; H R Dalton; C Mowat; D R Gaya; E Thompson; U Warshow; M Groome; A Cahill; G Benson; O Blatchford; W Murray
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Prediction of outcome in acute lower-gastrointestinal haemorrhage based on an artificial neural network: internal and external validation of a predictive model.

Authors:  Ananya Das; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Gregory S Cooper; Amitabh Chak; Michael V Sivak; Judith A Gonet; Richard C K Wong
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-10-18       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Effect of a machine learning-based severe sepsis prediction algorithm on patient survival and hospital length of stay: a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  David W Shimabukuro; Christopher W Barton; Mitchell D Feldman; Samson J Mataraso; Ritankar Das
Journal:  BMJ Open Respir Res       Date:  2017-11-09

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  18 in total

1.  Improving Acute GI Bleeding Management Through Artificial Intelligence: Unnatural Selection?

Authors:  Neil Sengupta; David A Leiman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Validation of a Machine Learning Model That Outperforms Clinical Risk Scoring Systems for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Dennis L Shung; Benjamin Au; Richard Andrew Taylor; J Kenneth Tay; Stig B Laursen; Adrian J Stanley; Harry R Dalton; Jeffrey Ngu; Michael Schultz; Loren Laine
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Machine learning and discriminant function analysis in the formulation of generic models for sex prediction using patella measurements.

Authors:  Mubarak A Bidmos; Oladiran I Olateju; Sabiha Latiff; Tawsifur Rahman; Muhammad E H Chowdhury
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2022-10-07       Impact factor: 2.791

Review 4.  Application of machine learning in predicting hospital readmissions: a scoping review of the literature.

Authors:  Yinan Huang; Ashna Talwar; Satabdi Chatterjee; Rajender R Aparasu
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Comparative Effectiveness of Machine Learning Approaches for Predicting Gastrointestinal Bleeds in Patients Receiving Antithrombotic Treatment.

Authors:  Jeph Herrin; Neena S Abraham; Xiaoxi Yao; Peter A Noseworthy; Jonathan Inselman; Nilay D Shah; Che Ngufor
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-05-03

6.  A machine learning approach to predict e-cigarette use and dependence among Ontario youth.

Authors:  Jiamin Shi; Rui Fu; Hayley Hamilton; Michael Chaiton
Journal:  Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 2.725

7.  Machine Learning Models for Predicting Neonatal Mortality: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Cheyenne Mangold; Sarah Zoretic; Keerthi Thallapureddy; Axel Moreira; Kevin Chorath; Alvaro Moreira
Journal:  Neonatology       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 4.035

8.  Machine Learning Prognostic Models for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Using Electronic Health Record Data.

Authors:  Dennis Shung; Loren Laine
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 12.045

9.  Machine learning health-related applications in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol.

Authors:  Rodrigo M Carrillo-Larco; Lorainne Tudor Car; Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard; Trishan Panch; J Jaime Miranda; Rifat Atun
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-05-10       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Is Artificial Intelligence Better Than Human Clinicians in Predicting Patient Outcomes?

Authors:  Joon Lee
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.