Machine learning in perioperative medicine: a systematic review.
Anesthesia
ICU
Machine learning
Perioperative
Risk prediction
Surgery
Journal
Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care
ISSN: 2731-3786
Titre abrégé: J Anesth Analg Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918591885906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jan 2022
15 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
07
12
2021
accepted:
04
01
2022
medline:
15
1
2022
pubmed:
15
1
2022
entrez:
29
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Risk stratification plays a central role in anesthetic evaluation. The use of Big Data and machine learning (ML) offers considerable advantages for collection and evaluation of large amounts of complex health-care data. We conducted a systematic review to understand the role of ML in the development of predictive post-surgical outcome models and risk stratification. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we selected the period of the research for studies from 1 January 2015 up to 30 March 2021. A systematic search in Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and MeSH databases was performed; the strings of research included different combinations of keywords: "risk prediction," "surgery," "machine learning," "intensive care unit (ICU)," and "anesthesia" "perioperative." We identified 36 eligible studies. This study evaluates the quality of reporting of prediction models using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist. The most considered outcomes were mortality risk, systemic complications (pulmonary, cardiovascular, acute kidney injury (AKI), etc.), ICU admission, anesthesiologic risk and prolonged length of hospital stay. Not all the study completely followed the TRIPOD checklist, but the quality was overall acceptable with 75% of studies (Rev #2, comm #minor issue) showing an adherence rate to TRIPOD more than 60%. The most frequently used algorithms were gradient boosting (n = 13), random forest (n = 10), logistic regression (LR; n = 7), artificial neural networks (ANNs; n = 6), and support vector machines (SVM; n = 6). Models with best performance were random forest and gradient boosting, with AUC > 0.90. The application of ML in medicine appears to have a great potential. From our analysis, depending on the input features considered and on the specific prediction task, ML algorithms seem effective in outcomes prediction more accurately than validated prognostic scores and traditional statistics. Thus, our review encourages the healthcare domain and artificial intelligence (AI) developers to adopt an interdisciplinary and systemic approach to evaluate the overall impact of AI on perioperative risk assessment and on further health care settings as well.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Risk stratification plays a central role in anesthetic evaluation. The use of Big Data and machine learning (ML) offers considerable advantages for collection and evaluation of large amounts of complex health-care data. We conducted a systematic review to understand the role of ML in the development of predictive post-surgical outcome models and risk stratification.
METHODS
METHODS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we selected the period of the research for studies from 1 January 2015 up to 30 March 2021. A systematic search in Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and MeSH databases was performed; the strings of research included different combinations of keywords: "risk prediction," "surgery," "machine learning," "intensive care unit (ICU)," and "anesthesia" "perioperative." We identified 36 eligible studies. This study evaluates the quality of reporting of prediction models using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The most considered outcomes were mortality risk, systemic complications (pulmonary, cardiovascular, acute kidney injury (AKI), etc.), ICU admission, anesthesiologic risk and prolonged length of hospital stay. Not all the study completely followed the TRIPOD checklist, but the quality was overall acceptable with 75% of studies (Rev #2, comm #minor issue) showing an adherence rate to TRIPOD more than 60%. The most frequently used algorithms were gradient boosting (n = 13), random forest (n = 10), logistic regression (LR; n = 7), artificial neural networks (ANNs; n = 6), and support vector machines (SVM; n = 6). Models with best performance were random forest and gradient boosting, with AUC > 0.90.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The application of ML in medicine appears to have a great potential. From our analysis, depending on the input features considered and on the specific prediction task, ML algorithms seem effective in outcomes prediction more accurately than validated prognostic scores and traditional statistics. Thus, our review encourages the healthcare domain and artificial intelligence (AI) developers to adopt an interdisciplinary and systemic approach to evaluate the overall impact of AI on perioperative risk assessment and on further health care settings as well.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37386544
doi: 10.1186/s44158-022-00033-y
pii: 10.1186/s44158-022-00033-y
pmc: PMC8761048
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
2Subventions
Organisme : Università degli Studi di Parma
ID : Fondo Sociale Europeo, delibera di GR 589/2019-Rif. PA 2019-11449/RER
Organisme : Fondazione Cariparma
ID : FIL-Quota Incentivante of University of Parma co-sponsored by Fondazione Cariparma
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Comput Math Methods Med. 2020 Nov 12;2020:6217392
pubmed: 33273961
Crit Care. 2019 Aug 22;23(1):284
pubmed: 31439010
Nat Biomed Eng. 2018 Oct;2(10):749-760
pubmed: 31001455
J Clin Monit Comput. 2021 Feb;35(1):71-78
pubmed: 31989416
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Dec;123(6):877-886
pubmed: 31627890
Anesth Analg. 2020 May;130(5):1201-1210
pubmed: 32287127
Ann Surg. 2019 Apr;269(4):652-662
pubmed: 29489489
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Aug 11;7:445
pubmed: 32903618
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2021 Feb;45:99-110
pubmed: 33121883
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 4;380(14):1347-1358
pubmed: 30943338
Anesthesiology. 2018 Mar;128(3):431-433
pubmed: 29166324
Anesthesiology. 2019 Dec;131(6):1346-1359
pubmed: 30973516
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019 Aug 21;264:398-402
pubmed: 31437953
Br J Anaesth. 2021 Apr;126(4):862-871
pubmed: 33390261
JAMA. 2018 Apr 3;319(13):1317-1318
pubmed: 29532063
Surgery. 2019 May;165(5):1035-1045
pubmed: 30792011
Physiol Genomics. 2020 Apr 1;52(4):200-202
pubmed: 32216577
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018 Dec;24(6):547-553
pubmed: 30308542
J Surg Res. 2020 Oct;254:350-363
pubmed: 32531520
Lancet. 2019 Apr 20;393(10181):1577-1579
pubmed: 31007185
Surg Endosc. 2021 Jan;35(1):182-191
pubmed: 31953733
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 16;15(4):e0231172
pubmed: 32298292
J Med Syst. 2018 Jun 30;42(8):148
pubmed: 29961144
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Sep;29(9):2958-2966
pubmed: 33047150
Crit Care. 2019 Aug 16;23(1):282
pubmed: 31420056
Anesthesiology. 2018 Oct;129(4):675-688
pubmed: 30074930
Commun Biol. 2019 Sep 2;2:327
pubmed: 31508502
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022 Feb;30(2):545-554
pubmed: 32880677
Anaesthesia. 2019 Mar;74(3):373-379
pubmed: 30648259
Anesth Analg. 2019 Jul;129(1):43-50
pubmed: 30234533
BMC Nephrol. 2021 Feb 22;22(1):63
pubmed: 33618695
Ann Surg. 2020 Dec;272(6):1133-1139
pubmed: 30973386
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2019 Oct;38(5):521-522
pubmed: 30633992
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 14;13(11):e0206862
pubmed: 30427913
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Dec;13(12):1959-1970
pubmed: 30255463
Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 31;11(1):3852
pubmed: 32737308
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Sep;89(3):505-513
pubmed: 32520897
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Jan 8;4(1):8
pubmed: 33420341
Nat Med. 2020 Mar;26(3):364-373
pubmed: 32152583
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):W1-73
pubmed: 25560730
J Clin Med. 2018 Nov 08;7(11):
pubmed: 30413107
Ann Card Anaesth. 2017 Apr-Jun;20(2):226-233
pubmed: 28393785
J Knee Surg. 2022 Jan;35(1):7-14
pubmed: 32512596
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jul;47(7):750-760
pubmed: 34089064
Anesth Analg. 2020 May;130(5):1157-1166
pubmed: 32287123
Artif Intell Med. 2015 Mar;63(3):191-207
pubmed: 25579436
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2019 Jun;16(3):186-194
pubmed: 31050151
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Jan 14;21(2):
pubmed: 33466610
BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 May 18;20(1):115
pubmed: 32423445
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Mar 1;4(3):e212240
pubmed: 33783520
Can J Anaesth. 2016 Feb;63(2):148-58
pubmed: 26670801
Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Dec;6(12):905-914
pubmed: 30274956
J Clin Med. 2018 Oct 03;7(10):
pubmed: 30282956
Surgery. 2021 Jul;170(1):298-303
pubmed: 33648766
Anesthesiology. 2009 Mar;110(3):505-15
pubmed: 19212261
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999 Jul;16(1):9-13
pubmed: 10456395
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021 Mar;35(3):857-865
pubmed: 32747203