A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.

<h4>Background</h4>An accurate prognostic tool is essential to aid clinical decision-making (e.g., patient triage) and to advance personalized medicine. However, such a prognostic tool is lacking for acute pancreatitis (AP). Increasingly machine learning (ML) techniques are being used to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Brian Critelli, Amier Hassan, Ila Lahooti, Lydia Noh, Jun Sung Park, Kathleen Tong, Ali Lahooti, Nathan Matzko, Jan Niklas Adams, Lukas Liss, Justin Quion, David Restrepo, Melica Nikahd, Stacey Culp, Adam Lacy-Hulbert, Cate Speake, James Buxbaum, Jason Bischof, Cemal Yazici, Anna Evans-Phillips, Sophie Terp, Alexandra Weissman, Darwin Conwell, Philip Hart, Mitchell Ramsey, Somashekar Krishna, Samuel Han, Erica Park, Raj Shah, Venkata Akshintala, John A Windsor, Nikhil K Mull, Georgios Papachristou, Leo Anthony Celi, Peter Lee
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2025-02-01
Series:PLoS Medicine
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004432
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850190272797868032
author Brian Critelli
Amier Hassan
Ila Lahooti
Lydia Noh
Jun Sung Park
Kathleen Tong
Ali Lahooti
Nathan Matzko
Jan Niklas Adams
Lukas Liss
Justin Quion
David Restrepo
Melica Nikahd
Stacey Culp
Adam Lacy-Hulbert
Cate Speake
James Buxbaum
Jason Bischof
Cemal Yazici
Anna Evans-Phillips
Sophie Terp
Alexandra Weissman
Darwin Conwell
Philip Hart
Mitchell Ramsey
Somashekar Krishna
Samuel Han
Erica Park
Raj Shah
Venkata Akshintala
John A Windsor
Nikhil K Mull
Georgios Papachristou
Leo Anthony Celi
Peter Lee
author_facet Brian Critelli
Amier Hassan
Ila Lahooti
Lydia Noh
Jun Sung Park
Kathleen Tong
Ali Lahooti
Nathan Matzko
Jan Niklas Adams
Lukas Liss
Justin Quion
David Restrepo
Melica Nikahd
Stacey Culp
Adam Lacy-Hulbert
Cate Speake
James Buxbaum
Jason Bischof
Cemal Yazici
Anna Evans-Phillips
Sophie Terp
Alexandra Weissman
Darwin Conwell
Philip Hart
Mitchell Ramsey
Somashekar Krishna
Samuel Han
Erica Park
Raj Shah
Venkata Akshintala
John A Windsor
Nikhil K Mull
Georgios Papachristou
Leo Anthony Celi
Peter Lee
author_sort Brian Critelli
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Background</h4>An accurate prognostic tool is essential to aid clinical decision-making (e.g., patient triage) and to advance personalized medicine. However, such a prognostic tool is lacking for acute pancreatitis (AP). Increasingly machine learning (ML) techniques are being used to develop high-performing prognostic models in AP. However, methodologic and reporting quality has received little attention. High-quality reporting and study methodology are critical for model validity, reproducibility, and clinical implementation. In collaboration with content experts in ML methodology, we performed a systematic review critically appraising the quality of methodology and reporting of recently published ML AP prognostic models.<h4>Methods/findings</h4>Using a validated search strategy, we identified ML AP studies from the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE published between January 2021 and December 2023. We also searched pre-print servers medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv for pre-prints registered between January 2021 and December 2023. Eligibility criteria included all retrospective or prospective studies that developed or validated new or existing ML models in patients with AP that predicted an outcome following an episode of AP. Meta-analysis was considered if there was homogeneity in the study design and in the type of outcome predicted. For risk of bias (ROB) assessment, we used the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Quality of reporting was assessed using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model of Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis-Artificial Intelligence (TRIPOD+AI) statement that defines standards for 27 items that should be reported in publications using ML prognostic models. The search strategy identified 6,480 publications of which 30 met the eligibility criteria. Studies originated from China (22), the United States (4), and other (4). All 30 studies developed a new ML model and none sought to validate an existing ML model, producing a total of 39 new ML models. AP severity (23/39) or mortality (6/39) were the most common outcomes predicted. The mean area under the curve for all models and endpoints was 0.91 (SD 0.08). The ROB was high for at least one domain in all 39 models, particularly for the analysis domain (37/39 models). Steps were not taken to minimize over-optimistic model performance in 27/39 models. Due to heterogeneity in the study design and in how the outcomes were defined and determined, meta-analysis was not performed. Studies reported on only 15/27 items from TRIPOD+AI standards, with only 7/30 justifying sample size and 13/30 assessing data quality. Other reporting deficiencies included omissions regarding human-AI interaction (28/30), handling low-quality or incomplete data in practice (27/30), sharing analytical codes (25/30), study protocols (25/30), and reporting source data (19/30).<h4>Conclusions</h4>There are significant deficiencies in the methodology and reporting of recently published ML based prognostic models in AP patients. These undermine the validity, reproducibility, and implementation of these prognostic models despite their promise of superior predictive accuracy.<h4>Registration</h4>Research Registry (reviewregistry1727).
format Article
id doaj-art-e7f8f807254447b4876d4ac12555c939
institution OA Journals
issn 1549-1277
1549-1676
language English
publishDate 2025-02-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS Medicine
spelling doaj-art-e7f8f807254447b4876d4ac12555c9392025-08-20T02:15:20ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Medicine1549-12771549-16762025-02-01222e100443210.1371/journal.pmed.1004432A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.Brian CritelliAmier HassanIla LahootiLydia NohJun Sung ParkKathleen TongAli LahootiNathan MatzkoJan Niklas AdamsLukas LissJustin QuionDavid RestrepoMelica NikahdStacey CulpAdam Lacy-HulbertCate SpeakeJames BuxbaumJason BischofCemal YaziciAnna Evans-PhillipsSophie TerpAlexandra WeissmanDarwin ConwellPhilip HartMitchell RamseySomashekar KrishnaSamuel HanErica ParkRaj ShahVenkata AkshintalaJohn A WindsorNikhil K MullGeorgios PapachristouLeo Anthony CeliPeter Lee<h4>Background</h4>An accurate prognostic tool is essential to aid clinical decision-making (e.g., patient triage) and to advance personalized medicine. However, such a prognostic tool is lacking for acute pancreatitis (AP). Increasingly machine learning (ML) techniques are being used to develop high-performing prognostic models in AP. However, methodologic and reporting quality has received little attention. High-quality reporting and study methodology are critical for model validity, reproducibility, and clinical implementation. In collaboration with content experts in ML methodology, we performed a systematic review critically appraising the quality of methodology and reporting of recently published ML AP prognostic models.<h4>Methods/findings</h4>Using a validated search strategy, we identified ML AP studies from the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE published between January 2021 and December 2023. We also searched pre-print servers medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv for pre-prints registered between January 2021 and December 2023. Eligibility criteria included all retrospective or prospective studies that developed or validated new or existing ML models in patients with AP that predicted an outcome following an episode of AP. Meta-analysis was considered if there was homogeneity in the study design and in the type of outcome predicted. For risk of bias (ROB) assessment, we used the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Quality of reporting was assessed using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model of Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis-Artificial Intelligence (TRIPOD+AI) statement that defines standards for 27 items that should be reported in publications using ML prognostic models. The search strategy identified 6,480 publications of which 30 met the eligibility criteria. Studies originated from China (22), the United States (4), and other (4). All 30 studies developed a new ML model and none sought to validate an existing ML model, producing a total of 39 new ML models. AP severity (23/39) or mortality (6/39) were the most common outcomes predicted. The mean area under the curve for all models and endpoints was 0.91 (SD 0.08). The ROB was high for at least one domain in all 39 models, particularly for the analysis domain (37/39 models). Steps were not taken to minimize over-optimistic model performance in 27/39 models. Due to heterogeneity in the study design and in how the outcomes were defined and determined, meta-analysis was not performed. Studies reported on only 15/27 items from TRIPOD+AI standards, with only 7/30 justifying sample size and 13/30 assessing data quality. Other reporting deficiencies included omissions regarding human-AI interaction (28/30), handling low-quality or incomplete data in practice (27/30), sharing analytical codes (25/30), study protocols (25/30), and reporting source data (19/30).<h4>Conclusions</h4>There are significant deficiencies in the methodology and reporting of recently published ML based prognostic models in AP patients. These undermine the validity, reproducibility, and implementation of these prognostic models despite their promise of superior predictive accuracy.<h4>Registration</h4>Research Registry (reviewregistry1727).https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004432
spellingShingle Brian Critelli
Amier Hassan
Ila Lahooti
Lydia Noh
Jun Sung Park
Kathleen Tong
Ali Lahooti
Nathan Matzko
Jan Niklas Adams
Lukas Liss
Justin Quion
David Restrepo
Melica Nikahd
Stacey Culp
Adam Lacy-Hulbert
Cate Speake
James Buxbaum
Jason Bischof
Cemal Yazici
Anna Evans-Phillips
Sophie Terp
Alexandra Weissman
Darwin Conwell
Philip Hart
Mitchell Ramsey
Somashekar Krishna
Samuel Han
Erica Park
Raj Shah
Venkata Akshintala
John A Windsor
Nikhil K Mull
Georgios Papachristou
Leo Anthony Celi
Peter Lee
A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.
PLoS Medicine
title A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.
title_full A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.
title_fullStr A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.
title_short A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.
title_sort systematic review of machine learning based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis towards improving methods and reporting quality
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004432
work_keys_str_mv AT briancritelli asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT amierhassan asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT ilalahooti asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT lydianoh asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT junsungpark asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT kathleentong asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT alilahooti asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT nathanmatzko asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT janniklasadams asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT lukasliss asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT justinquion asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT davidrestrepo asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT melicanikahd asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT staceyculp asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT adamlacyhulbert asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT catespeake asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT jamesbuxbaum asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT jasonbischof asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT cemalyazici asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT annaevansphillips asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT sophieterp asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT alexandraweissman asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT darwinconwell asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT philiphart asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT mitchellramsey asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT somashekarkrishna asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT samuelhan asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT ericapark asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT rajshah asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT venkataakshintala asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT johnawindsor asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT nikhilkmull asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT georgiospapachristou asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT leoanthonyceli asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT peterlee asystematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT briancritelli systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT amierhassan systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT ilalahooti systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT lydianoh systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT junsungpark systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT kathleentong systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT alilahooti systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT nathanmatzko systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT janniklasadams systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT lukasliss systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT justinquion systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT davidrestrepo systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT melicanikahd systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT staceyculp systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT adamlacyhulbert systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT catespeake systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT jamesbuxbaum systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT jasonbischof systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT cemalyazici systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT annaevansphillips systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT sophieterp systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT alexandraweissman systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT darwinconwell systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT philiphart systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT mitchellramsey systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT somashekarkrishna systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT samuelhan systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT ericapark systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT rajshah systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT venkataakshintala systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT johnawindsor systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT nikhilkmull systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT georgiospapachristou systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT leoanthonyceli systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality
AT peterlee systematicreviewofmachinelearningbasedprognosticmodelsforacutepancreatitistowardsimprovingmethodsandreportingquality