Alan Brnabic1, Lisa M Hess2. 1. Eli Lilly and Company, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. hess_lisa_m@lilly.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning is a broad term encompassing a number of methods that allow the investigator to learn from the data. These methods may permit large real-world databases to be more rapidly translated to applications to inform patient-provider decision making. METHODS: This systematic literature review was conducted to identify published observational research of employed machine learning to inform decision making at the patient-provider level. The search strategy was implemented and studies meeting eligibility criteria were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Relevant data related to study design, statistical methods and strengths and limitations were identified; study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Luo checklist. RESULTS: A total of 34 publications from January 2014 to September 2020 were identified and evaluated for this review. There were diverse methods, statistical packages and approaches used across identified studies. The most common methods included decision tree and random forest approaches. Most studies applied internal validation but only two conducted external validation. Most studies utilized one algorithm, and only eight studies applied multiple machine learning algorithms to the data. Seven items on the Luo checklist failed to be met by more than 50% of published studies. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of approaches, algorithms, statistical software, and validation strategies were employed in the application of machine learning methods to inform patient-provider decision making. There is a need to ensure that multiple machine learning approaches are used, the model selection strategy is clearly defined, and both internal and external validation are necessary to be sure that decisions for patient care are being made with the highest quality evidence. Future work should routinely employ ensemble methods incorporating multiple machine learning algorithms.
BACKGROUND: Machine learning is a broad term encompassing a number of methods that allow the investigator to learn from the data. These methods may permit large real-world databases to be more rapidly translated to applications to inform patient-provider decision making. METHODS: This systematic literature review was conducted to identify published observational research of employed machine learning to inform decision making at the patient-provider level. The search strategy was implemented and studies meeting eligibility criteria were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Relevant data related to study design, statistical methods and strengths and limitations were identified; study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Luo checklist. RESULTS: A total of 34 publications from January 2014 to September 2020 were identified and evaluated for this review. There were diverse methods, statistical packages and approaches used across identified studies. The most common methods included decision tree and random forest approaches. Most studies applied internal validation but only two conducted external validation. Most studies utilized one algorithm, and only eight studies applied multiple machine learning algorithms to the data. Seven items on the Luo checklist failed to be met by more than 50% of published studies. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of approaches, algorithms, statistical software, and validation strategies were employed in the application of machine learning methods to inform patient-provider decision making. There is a need to ensure that multiple machine learning approaches are used, the model selection strategy is clearly defined, and both internal and external validation are necessary to be sure that decisions for patient care are being made with the highest quality evidence. Future work should routinely employ ensemble methods incorporating multiple machine learning algorithms.
Authors: Aditya V Karhade; Paul T Ogink; Quirina C B S Thio; Thomas D Cha; William B Gormley; Stuart H Hershman; Timothy R Smith; Jianren Mao; Andrew J Schoenfeld; Christopher M Bono; Joseph H Schwab Journal: Spine J Date: 2019-06-09 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Hussain A Isma'eel; Paul C Cremer; Shaden Khalaf; Mohamad M Almedawar; Imad H Elhajj; George E Sakr; Wael A Jaber Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Renate B Schnabel; Lisa M Sullivan; Daniel Levy; Michael J Pencina; Joseph M Massaro; Ralph B D'Agostino; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Jennifer F Yamamoto; Jared W Magnani; Thomas M Tadros; William B Kannel; Thomas J Wang; Patrick T Ellinor; Philip A Wolf; Ramachandran S Vasan; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-02-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Wei Luo; Dinh Phung; Truyen Tran; Sunil Gupta; Santu Rana; Chandan Karmakar; Alistair Shilton; John Yearwood; Nevenka Dimitrova; Tu Bao Ho; Svetha Venkatesh; Michael Berk Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 5.428