Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39178283›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Using machine learning methods to predict all-cause somatic hospitalizations in adults: A systematic review.

Mohsen Askar, Masoud Tafavvoghi, Lars Småbrekke, Lars Ailo Bongo, Kristian Svendsen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Mohsen AskarFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9257-5164
Masoud TafavvoghiFaculty of Science and Technology, Department of Computer Science, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Lars SmåbrekkeFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Lars Ailo BongoFaculty of Science and Technology, Department of Computer Science, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7544-2482
Kristian SvendsenFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3481-3539

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimIn this review, we investigated how Machine Learning (ML) was utilized to predict all-cause somatic hospital admissions and readmissions in adults.

methodsWe searched eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, ProQuest, OpenGrey, WorldCat, and MedNar) from their inception date to October 2023, and included records that predicted all-cause somatic hospital admissions and readmissions of adults using ML methodology. We used the CHARMS checklist for data extraction, PROBAST for bias and applicability assessment, and TRIPOD for reporting quality.

resultsWe screened 7,543 studies of which 163 full-text records were read and 116 met the review inclusion criteria. Among these, 45 predicted admission, 70 predicted readmission, and one study predicted both. There was a substantial variety in the types of datasets, algorithms, features, data preprocessing steps, evaluation, and validation methods. The most used types of features were demographics, diagnoses, vital signs, and laboratory tests. Area Under the ROC curve (AUC) was the most used evaluation metric. Models trained using boosting tree-based algorithms often performed better compared to others. ML algorithms commonly outperformed traditional regression techniques. Sixteen studies used Natural language processing (NLP) of clinical notes for prediction, all studies yielded good results. The overall adherence to reporting quality was poor in the review studies. Only five percent of models were implemented in clinical practice. The most frequently inadequately addressed methodological aspects were: providing model interpretations on the individual patient level, full code availability, performing external validation, calibrating models, and handling class imbalance.

conclusionThis review has identified considerable concerns regarding methodological issues and reporting quality in studies investigating ML to predict hospitalizations. To ensure the acceptability of these models in clinical settings, it is crucial to improve the quality of future studies.

Indexed as

HospitalizationMachine LearningAdultAlgorithmsHumansNatural Language ProcessingPatient ReadmissionROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID39178283
PMCPMC11343463

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.