Artificial intelligence in the risk prediction models of cardiovascular disease and development of an independent validation screening tool: a systematic review
Background A comprehensive overview of artificial intelligence (AI) for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction and a screening tool of AI models (AI-Ms) for independent external validation are lacking. This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and appraise AI-Ms of CVD prediction in the general and special populations and develop a new independent validation score (IVS) for AI-Ms replicability evaluation. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and IEEE library were searched up to July 2021. Data extraction and analysis were performed for the populations, distribution, predictors, algorithms, etc. The risk of bias was evaluated with the prediction risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Subsequently, we designed IVS for model replicability evaluation with five steps in five items, including transparency of algorithms, performance of models, feasibility of reproduction, risk of reproduction, and clinical implication, respectively. The review is registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42021271789). Results In 20,887 screened references, 79 articles (82.5% in 2017–2021) were included, which contained 114 datasets (67 in Europe and North America, but 0 in Africa). We identified 486 AI-Ms, of which the majority were in development (n = 380), but none of them had undergone independent external validation. A total of 66 idiographic algorithms were found; however, 36.4% were used only once and only 39.4% over three times. A large number of different predictors (range 5–52,000, median 21) and large-span sample size (range 80–3,660,000, median 4466) were observed. All models were at high risk of bias according to PROBAST, primarily due to the incorrect use of statistical methods. IVS analysis confirmed only 10 models as “recommended”; however, 281 and 187 were “not recommended” and “warning,” respectively. Conclusion AI has led the digital revolution in the field of CVD prediction, but is still in the early stage of development as the defects of research design, report, and evaluation systems. The IVS we developed may contribute to independent external validation and the development of this field..
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:22 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
BMC medicine - 22(2024), 1 vom: 05. Feb. |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Cai, Yue [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
Volltext [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| Themen: |
Artificial intelligence |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
© The Author(s) 2024 |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s12916-024-03273-7 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
SPR054657717 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR054657717 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240206064746.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240206s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12916-024-03273-7 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR054657717 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s12916-024-03273-7-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Cai, Yue |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Artificial intelligence in the risk prediction models of cardiovascular disease and development of an independent validation screening tool: a systematic review |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2024 | ||
| 520 | |a Background A comprehensive overview of artificial intelligence (AI) for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction and a screening tool of AI models (AI-Ms) for independent external validation are lacking. This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and appraise AI-Ms of CVD prediction in the general and special populations and develop a new independent validation score (IVS) for AI-Ms replicability evaluation. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and IEEE library were searched up to July 2021. Data extraction and analysis were performed for the populations, distribution, predictors, algorithms, etc. The risk of bias was evaluated with the prediction risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Subsequently, we designed IVS for model replicability evaluation with five steps in five items, including transparency of algorithms, performance of models, feasibility of reproduction, risk of reproduction, and clinical implication, respectively. The review is registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42021271789). Results In 20,887 screened references, 79 articles (82.5% in 2017–2021) were included, which contained 114 datasets (67 in Europe and North America, but 0 in Africa). We identified 486 AI-Ms, of which the majority were in development (n = 380), but none of them had undergone independent external validation. A total of 66 idiographic algorithms were found; however, 36.4% were used only once and only 39.4% over three times. A large number of different predictors (range 5–52,000, median 21) and large-span sample size (range 80–3,660,000, median 4466) were observed. All models were at high risk of bias according to PROBAST, primarily due to the incorrect use of statistical methods. IVS analysis confirmed only 10 models as “recommended”; however, 281 and 187 were “not recommended” and “warning,” respectively. Conclusion AI has led the digital revolution in the field of CVD prediction, but is still in the early stage of development as the defects of research design, report, and evaluation systems. The IVS we developed may contribute to independent external validation and the development of this field. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Artificial intelligence |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cardiovascular disease |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Machine learning |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Risk prediction models |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cai, Yu-Qing |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tang, Li-Ying |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Yi-Han |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gong, Mengchun |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jing, Tian-Ci |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Hui-Jun |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li-Ling, Jesse |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hu, Wei |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yin, Zhihua |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gong, Da-Xin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Guang-Wei |0 (orcid)0000-0003-0302-4625 |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC medicine |d London : BioMed Central, 2003 |g 22(2024), 1 vom: 05. Feb. |w (DE-627)SPR02834149X |w (DE-600)2131669-7 |x 1741-7015 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:22 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:05 |g month:02 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03273-7 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 22 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 05 |c 02 | ||