Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35639445›Full record

ReviewJMIR medical informatics2022

Comparison of Severity of Illness Scores and Artificial Intelligence Models That Are Predictive of Intensive Care Unit Mortality: Meta-analysis and Review of the Literature.

Cristina Barboi, Andreas Tzavelis, Lutfiyya NaQiyba Muhammad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. AI Quality Standards in Health Care: Rapid Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Machine Learning for Benchmarking Critical Care Outcomes.Healthcare informatics research · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. D-Dimer as a Prognostic Factor in a Tertiary Center Intensive Coronary Care Unit.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    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

3 authors.

Cristina BarboiIndiana University Purdue University, Regenstrief Institue, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8356-7285
Andreas TzavelisMedical Scientist Training Program, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0750-5007
Lutfiyya NaQiyba MuhammadDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8655-1484

Funding

Skin-like, stretchable, and wearable sensors for monitoring QT interval and hemodynamic variables in Atrial FibrillationF30HL157066 · NHLBI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI TZAVELIS, ANDREAS · 2021 to 2025
$246k
NHLBI NIH HHS F30 HL157066
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeverity of illness scores-Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-are current risk stratification and mortality prediction tools used in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Developers of artificial intelligence or machine learning (ML) models predictive of ICU mortality use the severity of illness scores as a reference point when reporting the performance of these computational constructs.

objectiveThis study aimed to perform a literature review and meta-analysis of articles that compared binary classification ML models with the severity of illness scores that predict ICU mortality and determine which models have superior performance. This review intends to provide actionable guidance to clinicians on the performance and validity of ML models in supporting clinical decision-making compared with the severity of illness score models.

methodsBetween December 15 and 18, 2020, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and IEEE databases and reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2020 that compared the performance of binary ML models predictive of ICU mortality with the performance of severity of illness score models on the same data sets. We assessed the studies' characteristics, synthesized the results, meta-analyzed the discriminative performance of the ML and severity of illness score models, and performed tests of heterogeneity within and among studies.

resultsWe screened 461 abstracts, of which we assessed the full text of 66 (14.3%) articles. We included in the review 20 (4.3%) studies that developed 47 ML models based on 7 types of algorithms and compared them with 3 types of the severity of illness score models. Of the 20 studies, 4 (20%) were found to have a low risk of bias and applicability in model development, 7 (35%) performed external validation, 9 (45%) reported on calibration, 12 (60%) reported on classification measures, and 4 (20%) addressed explainability. The discriminative performance of the ML-based models, which was reported as AUROC, ranged between 0.728 and 0.99 and between 0.58 and 0.86 for the severity of illness score-based models. We noted substantial heterogeneity among the reported models and considerable variation among the AUROC estimates for both ML and severity of illness score model types.

conclusionsML-based models can accurately predict ICU mortality as an alternative to traditional scoring models. Although the range of performance of the ML models is superior to that of the severity of illness score models, the results cannot be generalized due to the high degree of heterogeneity. When presented with the option of choosing between severity of illness score or ML models for decision support, clinicians should select models that have been externally validated, tested in the practice environment, and updated to the patient population and practice environment.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021203871; https://tinyurl.com/28v2nch8.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceintensive care unit mortalitymachine learningseverity of illness models

Identifiers

PMID35639445
PMCPMC9198821

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.