RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Generalisability of AI-based scoring systems in the ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.10.11.23296733
DO 10.1101/2023.10.11.23296733
A1 Rockenschaub, Patrick
A1 Akay, Ela Marie
A1 Carlisle, Benjamin Gregory
A1 Hilbert, Adam
A1 Meyer-Eschenbach, Falk
A1 Näher, Anatol-Fiete
A1 Frey, Dietmar
A1 Madai, Vince Istvan
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/12/2023.10.11.23296733.abstract
AB Background Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used to predict clinical deterioration in intensive care unit (ICU) patients through scoring systems. Although promising, such algorithms often overfit their training cohort and perform worse at new hospitals. Thus, external validation is a critical – but frequently overlooked – step to establish the reliability of predicted risk scores to translate them into clinical practice. We systematically reviewed how regularly external validation of ML-based risk scores is performed and how their performance changed in external data.Methods We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and arXiv for studies using ML to predict deterioration of ICU patients from routine data. We included primary research published in English before April 2022. We summarised how many studies were externally validated, assessing differences over time, by outcome, and by data source. For validated studies, we evaluated the change in area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) attributable to external validation using linear mixed-effects models.Results We included 355 studies, of which 39 (11.0%) were externally validated, increasing to 17.9% by 2022. Validated studies made disproportionate use of open-source data, with two well-known US datasets (MIMIC and eICU) accounting for 79.5% of studies. On average, AUROC was reduced by -0.037 (95% CI -0.064 to -0.017) in external data, with >0.05 reduction in 38.6% of studies.Discussion External validation, although increasing, remains uncommon. Performance was generally lower in external data, questioning the reliability of some recently proposed ML-based scores. Interpretation of the results was challenged by an overreliance on the same few datasets, implicit differences in case mix, and exclusive use of AUROC.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=311514 Funding StatementThis work was supported through a postdoc grant awarded to PR by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Grant Nr. 1221006). This work also received funding from the European Commission via the Horizon 2020 program for PRECISE4Q (No. 777107, lead: DF).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F7J46. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F7J46)