Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37407226›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2023

Navigating the machine learning pipeline: a scoping review of inpatient delirium prediction models.

Tom Strating, Leila Shafiee Hanjani, Ida Tornvall, Ruth Hubbard, Ian A Scott

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tom StratingCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Leila Shafiee HanjaniCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ida TornvallCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ruth HubbardCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ian A ScottCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia ian.scott@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7596-0837
The University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEarly identification of inpatients at risk of developing delirium and implementing preventive measures could avoid up to 40% of delirium cases. Machine learning (ML)-based prediction models may enable risk stratification and targeted intervention, but establishing their current evolutionary status requires a scoping review of recent literature.

methodsWe searched ten databases up to June 2022 for studies of ML-based delirium prediction models. Eligible criteria comprised: use of at least one ML prediction method in an adult hospital inpatient population; published in English; reporting at least one performance measure (area under receiver-operator curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive or negative predictive value). Included models were categorised by their stage of maturation and assessed for performance, utility and user acceptance in clinical practice.

resultsAmong 921 screened studies, 39 met eligibility criteria. In-silico performance was consistently high (median AUROC: 0.85); however, only six articles (15.4%) reported external validation, revealing degraded performance (median AUROC: 0.75). Three studies (7.7%) of models deployed within clinical workflows reported high accuracy (median AUROC: 0.92) and high user acceptance. DISCUSSION: ML models have potential to identify inpatients at risk of developing delirium before symptom onset. However, few models were externally validated and even fewer underwent prospective evaluation in clinical settings.

conclusionThis review confirms a rapidly growing body of research into using ML for predicting delirium risk in hospital settings. Our findings offer insights for both developers and clinicians into strengths and limitations of current ML delirium prediction applications aiming to support but not usurp clinician decision-making.

Indexed as

DeliriumInpatientsAdultHospitalizationHumansMachine LearningRisk Assessmentartificial intelligencedecision making, computer-assistedmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37407226
PMCPMC10335592
OpenAlexW4383301686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.