Cargando…
Machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review
PURPOSE: An indication for surgical therapy includes balancing benefits against risk, which remains a key task in all surgical disciplines. Decisions are oftentimes based on clinical experience while guidelines lack evidence-based background. Various medical fields capitalized the application of mac...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8847247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34716472 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02348-w |
_version_ | 1784652011371757568 |
---|---|
author | Henn, Jonas Buness, Andreas Schmid, Matthias Kalff, Jörg C. Matthaei, Hanno |
author_facet | Henn, Jonas Buness, Andreas Schmid, Matthias Kalff, Jörg C. Matthaei, Hanno |
author_sort | Henn, Jonas |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: An indication for surgical therapy includes balancing benefits against risk, which remains a key task in all surgical disciplines. Decisions are oftentimes based on clinical experience while guidelines lack evidence-based background. Various medical fields capitalized the application of machine learning (ML), and preliminary research suggests promising implications in surgeons’ workflow. Hence, we evaluated ML’s contemporary and possible future role in clinical decision-making (CDM) focusing on abdominal surgery. METHODS: Using the PICO framework, relevant keywords and research questions were identified. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systemic search strategy in the PubMed database was conducted. Results were filtered by distinct criteria and selected articles were manually full text reviewed. RESULTS: Literature review revealed 4,396 articles, of which 47 matched the search criteria. The mean number of patients included was 55,843. A total of eight distinct ML techniques were evaluated whereas AUROC was applied by most authors for comparing ML predictions vs. conventional CDM routines. Most authors (N = 30/47, 63.8%) stated ML’s superiority in the prediction of benefits and risks of surgery. The identification of highly relevant parameters to be integrated into algorithms allowing a more precise prognosis was emphasized as the main advantage of ML in CDM. CONCLUSIONS: A potential value of ML for surgical decision-making was demonstrated in several scientific articles. However, the low number of publications with only few collaborative studies between surgeons and computer scientists underpins the early phase of this highly promising field. Interdisciplinary research initiatives combining existing clinical datasets and emerging techniques of data processing may likely improve CDM in abdominal surgery in the future. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8847247 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88472472022-02-23 Machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review Henn, Jonas Buness, Andreas Schmid, Matthias Kalff, Jörg C. Matthaei, Hanno Langenbecks Arch Surg Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses PURPOSE: An indication for surgical therapy includes balancing benefits against risk, which remains a key task in all surgical disciplines. Decisions are oftentimes based on clinical experience while guidelines lack evidence-based background. Various medical fields capitalized the application of machine learning (ML), and preliminary research suggests promising implications in surgeons’ workflow. Hence, we evaluated ML’s contemporary and possible future role in clinical decision-making (CDM) focusing on abdominal surgery. METHODS: Using the PICO framework, relevant keywords and research questions were identified. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systemic search strategy in the PubMed database was conducted. Results were filtered by distinct criteria and selected articles were manually full text reviewed. RESULTS: Literature review revealed 4,396 articles, of which 47 matched the search criteria. The mean number of patients included was 55,843. A total of eight distinct ML techniques were evaluated whereas AUROC was applied by most authors for comparing ML predictions vs. conventional CDM routines. Most authors (N = 30/47, 63.8%) stated ML’s superiority in the prediction of benefits and risks of surgery. The identification of highly relevant parameters to be integrated into algorithms allowing a more precise prognosis was emphasized as the main advantage of ML in CDM. CONCLUSIONS: A potential value of ML for surgical decision-making was demonstrated in several scientific articles. However, the low number of publications with only few collaborative studies between surgeons and computer scientists underpins the early phase of this highly promising field. Interdisciplinary research initiatives combining existing clinical datasets and emerging techniques of data processing may likely improve CDM in abdominal surgery in the future. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-10-29 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8847247/ /pubmed/34716472 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02348-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Henn, Jonas Buness, Andreas Schmid, Matthias Kalff, Jörg C. Matthaei, Hanno Machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review |
title | Machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review |
title_full | Machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review |
title_fullStr | Machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review |
title_full_unstemmed | Machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review |
title_short | Machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review |
title_sort | machine learning to guide clinical decision-making in abdominal surgery—a systematic literature review |
topic | Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8847247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34716472 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02348-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hennjonas machinelearningtoguideclinicaldecisionmakinginabdominalsurgeryasystematicliteraturereview AT bunessandreas machinelearningtoguideclinicaldecisionmakinginabdominalsurgeryasystematicliteraturereview AT schmidmatthias machinelearningtoguideclinicaldecisionmakinginabdominalsurgeryasystematicliteraturereview AT kalffjorgc machinelearningtoguideclinicaldecisionmakinginabdominalsurgeryasystematicliteraturereview AT matthaeihanno machinelearningtoguideclinicaldecisionmakinginabdominalsurgeryasystematicliteraturereview |