Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33820530›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2021

Machine learning for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure, acute coronary syndromes and atrial fibrillation: systematic review of validity and clinical utility.

Amitava Banerjee, Suliang Chen, Ghazaleh Fatemifar, Mohamad Zeina, R Thomas Lumbers, Johanna Mielke, Simrat Gill, Dipak Kotecha, Daniel F Freitag, Spiros Denaxas and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Amitava BanerjeeInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK. ami.banerjee@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8741-3411
Suliang ChenInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Ghazaleh FatemifarInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Mohamad ZeinaMedical School, King's College London, London, UK.
R Thomas LumbersInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Johanna MielkeBayer AG, Division Pharmaceuticals, Open Innovation & Digital Technologies, Wuppertal, Germany.
Simrat GillUniversity of Birmingham Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Dipak KotechaUniversity of Birmingham Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Daniel F FreitagBayer AG, Division Pharmaceuticals, Open Innovation & Digital Technologies, Wuppertal, Germany.
Spiros DenaxasInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Harry HemingwayInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13041Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Medical Research Council MR/S003754/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine 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).

methodsFor 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.

resultsOf 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).

conclusionsStudies 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.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeAtrial FibrillationHeart FailureCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMachine LearningCardiovascular diseaseInformaticsMachine learningRisk predictionSubtypeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33820530
PMCPMC8022365

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.