Prognostic performance of machine learning in predicting haematological cancer outcomes: systematic review and
Adugnaw Zeleke Alem1, Itismita Mohanty2, Nalini Pati3
1Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Institute of Public Health, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Diagnosis and treatment of haematologic malignancies present significant challenges, underscoring the need for highly individualized therapeutic approaches. Incorporating machine learning (ML) algorithms into predictions of haematological cancer outcomes has been increasingly investigated in recent years. However, it has not been investigated whether ML-based approach is superior to standard regression methods. Therefore, this review aims to assess their performance as compared to standard regression-based prediction methods. Studies from Web of Science, Medline, SCOPUS, CINHAL were reviewed, and associated risk of bias (ROB) assessed using PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool). Standard and three-level random-effects meta-analysis were performed to obtain the ML pooled discriminative ability. Of 4204 retrieved studies, 48 were included in the systematic review. Pooled area under the curve (AUC) values of 24 top-performing ML and all 71 ML models from 19 studies were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.84) and 0.779 (95% CI: 0.731, 0.827) in the testing set, respectively. The discrimination ability was similar between top-performing ML algorithms (AUC = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.70-0.86) and standard regression (AUC = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.66-0.78) in testing set. The three-level meta-analysis that incorporated all ML algorithms revealed similar results. However, externally validated top-performing ML algorithms outperformed standard models with a pooled AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.76-0.98) compared with 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79). Although ML models' performance was acceptable, studies generally exhibited high ROB, emphasizing the need for future ML models to adhere to PROBAST guidelines.
Diagnosis and treatment of haematologic malignancies present significant challenges, underscoring the need for highly individualized therapeutic approaches. Incorporating machine learning (ML) algorithms into predictions of haematological cancer outcomes has been increasingly investigated in recent years. However, it has not been investigated whether ML-based approach is superior to standard regression methods. Therefore, this review aims to assess their performance as compared to standard regression-based prediction methods. Studies from Web of Science, Medline, SCOPUS, CINHAL were reviewed, and associated risk of bias (ROB) assessed using PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool). Standard and three-level random-effects meta-analysis were performed to obtain the ML pooled discriminative ability. Of 4204 retrieved studies, 48 were included in the systematic review. Pooled area under the curve (AUC) values of 24 top-performing ML and all 71 ML models from 19 studies were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.84) and 0.779 (95% CI: 0.731, 0.827) in the testing set, respectively. The discrimination ability was similar between top-performing ML algorithms (AUC = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.70-0.86) and standard regression (AUC = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.66-0.78) in testing set. The three-level meta-analysis that incorporated all ML algorithms revealed similar results. However, externally validated top-performing ML algorithms outperformed standard models with a pooled AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.76-0.98) compared with 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79). Although ML models' performance was acceptable, studies generally exhibited high ROB, emphasizing the need for future ML models to adhere to PROBAST guidelines.
More Related Videos
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
07:15Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
Published on: August 16, 2020
