Back

A systematic review of clinical health conditions predicted by machine learning diagnostic and prognostic models trained or validated using real-world primary health care data

Abdulazeem, H.; Whitelaw, S.; Schauberger, G.; Klug, S.

2022-08-30 primary care research
10.1101/2022.08.25.22279229 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimWith the rapid advances in technology and data science, machine learning (ML) is being adopted by the health care sector; but there is a lack of literature addressing the health conditions targeted by the ML prediction models within primary health care (PHC). To fill this gap in knowledge, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines to identify the health conditions targeted by ML in PHC. MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Elsevier, BioRxiv, Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), and IEEE Xplore databases for studies published from January 1990 to January 2022. We included any primary study addressing ML diagnostic or prognostic predictive models that were supplied completely or partially by real-world PHC data. We performed literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Health conditions were categorized according to international classification of diseases. Extracted date were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. ResultsWe identified 109 studies investigating 42 health conditions. These studies included 273 ML prediction models supplied by the PHC data of 24.2 million participants from 19 countries. We found that 82% of the studies were retrospective. 76.6% of the studies reported diagnostic predictive ML models. 77% of all reported models aimed for models development without external validation. Risk of bias assessment revealed that 90.8% of the studies were of high or unclear risk of bias. The most frequently reported health conditions were Alzheimers disease and diabetes mellitus. ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first review to investigate the extent of the health conditions targeted by the ML prediction models within PHC settings. Our study provides an important summary on the presently available ML models in PHC, which can be used in further research and implementation efforts.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.