Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35321760›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2022

Multivariable prediction models for health care spending using machine learning: a protocol of a systematic review.

Andrew W Huang, Martin Haslberger, Neto Coulibaly, Omar Galárraga, Arman Oganisian, Lazaros Belbasis, Orestis A Panagiotou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Andrew W HuangDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Rhode Island, Providence, USA. andrew_huang2@brown.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7552-7091
Martin HaslbergerQUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Neto CoulibalyDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Rhode Island, Providence, USA.
Omar GalárragaDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Rhode Island, Providence, USA.
Arman OganisianDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Lazaros BelbasisMeta-Research Innovation Center Berlin, QUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Orestis A PanagiotouDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Rhode Island, Providence, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith rising cost pressures on health care systems, machine-learning (ML)-based algorithms are increasingly used to predict health care costs. Despite their potential advantages, the successful implementation of these methods could be undermined by biases introduced in the design, conduct, or analysis of studies seeking to develop and/or validate ML models. The utility of such models may also be negatively affected by poor reporting of these studies. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the reporting quality, methodological characteristics, and risk of bias of ML-based prediction models for individual-level health care spending.

methodsWe will systematically search PubMed and Embase to identify studies developing, updating, or validating ML-based models to predict an individual's health care spending for any medical condition, over any time period, and in any setting. We will exclude prediction models of aggregate-level health care spending, models used to infer causality, models using radiomics or speech parameters, models of non-clinically validated predictors (e.g., genomics), and cost-effectiveness analyses without predicting individual-level health care spending. We will extract data based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS), previously published research, and relevant recommendations. We will assess the adherence of ML-based studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and examine the inclusion of transparency and reproducibility indicators (e.g. statements on data sharing). To assess the risk of bias, we will apply the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Findings will be stratified by study design, ML methods used, population characteristics, and medical field. DISCUSSION: Our systematic review will appraise the quality, reporting, and risk of bias of ML-based models for individualized health care cost prediction. This review will provide an overview of the available models and give insights into the strengths and limitations of using ML methods for the prediction of health spending.

Indexed as

Health care spendingMachine learningPredictionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35321760
PMCPMC8943988

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.