Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34294092›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

A systematic review of the applications of Expert Systems (ES) and machine learning (ML) in clinical urology.

Hesham Salem, Daniele Soria, Jonathan N Lund, Amir Awwad

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. System Models for Synchronous Strategies in Operational Healthcare Forecasting.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Hesham SalemUrological Department, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG72UH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5296-2311
Daniele SoriaSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Westminster, London, W1W 6UW, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0164-8218
Jonathan N LundUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Derby Hospital, University of Nottingham, Derby, DE22 3DT, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5195-2181
Amir AwwadNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG72UH, UK. amir.awwad@lhsc.on.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1288-1493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTesting a hypothesis for 'factors-outcome effect' is a common quest, but standard statistical regression analysis tools are rendered ineffective by data contaminated with too many noisy variables. Expert Systems (ES) can provide an alternative methodology in analysing data to identify variables with the highest correlation to the outcome. By applying their effective machine learning (ML) abilities, significant research time and costs can be saved. The study aims to systematically review the applications of ES in urological research and their methodological models for effective multi-variate analysis. Their domains, development and validity will be identified.

methodsThe PRISMA methodology was applied to formulate an effective method for data gathering and analysis. This study search included seven most relevant information sources: WEB OF SCIENCE, EMBASE, BIOSIS CITATION INDEX, SCOPUS, PUBMED, Google Scholar and MEDLINE. Eligible articles were included if they applied one of the known ML models for a clear urological research question involving multivariate analysis. Only articles with pertinent research methods in ES models were included. The analysed data included the system model, applications, input/output variables, target user, validation, and outcomes. Both ML models and the variable analysis were comparatively reported for each system.

resultsThe search identified n = 1087 articles from all databases and n = 712 were eligible for examination against inclusion criteria. A total of 168 systems were finally included and systematically analysed demonstrating a recent increase in uptake of ES in academic urology in particular artificial neural networks with 31 systems. Most of the systems were applied in urological oncology (prostate cancer = 15, bladder cancer = 13) where diagnostic, prognostic and survival predictor markers were investigated. Due to the heterogeneity of models and their statistical tests, a meta-analysis was not feasible.

conclusionES utility offers an effective ML potential and their applications in research have demonstrated a valid model for multi-variate analysis. The complexity of their development can challenge their uptake in urological clinics whilst the limitation of the statistical tools in this domain has created a gap for further research studies. Integration of computer scientists in academic units has promoted the use of ES in clinical urological research.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUrologyExpert SystemsHumansMachine LearningMaleMEDLINE

Identifiers

PMID34294092
PMCPMC8299670

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.