Cargando…
Predicting Outcome in Patients with Brain Injury: Differences between Machine Learning versus Conventional Statistics
Defining reliable tools for early prediction of outcome is the main target for physicians to guide care decisions in patients with brain injury. The application of machine learning (ML) is rapidly increasing in this field of study, but with a poor translation to clinical practice. This is basically...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9496389/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36140369 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10092267 |
_version_ | 1784794256810967040 |
---|---|
author | Cerasa, Antonio Tartarisco, Gennaro Bruschetta, Roberta Ciancarelli, Irene Morone, Giovanni Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore Pioggia, Giovanni Tonin, Paolo Iosa, Marco |
author_facet | Cerasa, Antonio Tartarisco, Gennaro Bruschetta, Roberta Ciancarelli, Irene Morone, Giovanni Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore Pioggia, Giovanni Tonin, Paolo Iosa, Marco |
author_sort | Cerasa, Antonio |
collection | PubMed |
description | Defining reliable tools for early prediction of outcome is the main target for physicians to guide care decisions in patients with brain injury. The application of machine learning (ML) is rapidly increasing in this field of study, but with a poor translation to clinical practice. This is basically dependent on the uncertainty about the advantages of this novel technique with respect to traditional approaches. In this review we address the main differences between ML techniques and traditional statistics (such as logistic regression, LR) applied for predicting outcome in patients with stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Thirteen papers directly addressing the different performance among ML and LR methods were included in this review. Basically, ML algorithms do not outperform traditional regression approaches for outcome prediction in brain injury. Better performance of specific ML algorithms (such as Artificial neural networks) was mainly described in the stroke domain, but the high heterogeneity in features extracted from low-dimensional clinical data reduces the enthusiasm for applying this powerful method in clinical practice. To better capture and predict the dynamic changes in patients with brain injury during intensive care courses ML algorithms should be extended to high-dimensional data extracted from neuroimaging (structural and fMRI), EEG and genetics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9496389 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94963892022-09-23 Predicting Outcome in Patients with Brain Injury: Differences between Machine Learning versus Conventional Statistics Cerasa, Antonio Tartarisco, Gennaro Bruschetta, Roberta Ciancarelli, Irene Morone, Giovanni Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore Pioggia, Giovanni Tonin, Paolo Iosa, Marco Biomedicines Review Defining reliable tools for early prediction of outcome is the main target for physicians to guide care decisions in patients with brain injury. The application of machine learning (ML) is rapidly increasing in this field of study, but with a poor translation to clinical practice. This is basically dependent on the uncertainty about the advantages of this novel technique with respect to traditional approaches. In this review we address the main differences between ML techniques and traditional statistics (such as logistic regression, LR) applied for predicting outcome in patients with stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Thirteen papers directly addressing the different performance among ML and LR methods were included in this review. Basically, ML algorithms do not outperform traditional regression approaches for outcome prediction in brain injury. Better performance of specific ML algorithms (such as Artificial neural networks) was mainly described in the stroke domain, but the high heterogeneity in features extracted from low-dimensional clinical data reduces the enthusiasm for applying this powerful method in clinical practice. To better capture and predict the dynamic changes in patients with brain injury during intensive care courses ML algorithms should be extended to high-dimensional data extracted from neuroimaging (structural and fMRI), EEG and genetics. MDPI 2022-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9496389/ /pubmed/36140369 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10092267 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Cerasa, Antonio Tartarisco, Gennaro Bruschetta, Roberta Ciancarelli, Irene Morone, Giovanni Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore Pioggia, Giovanni Tonin, Paolo Iosa, Marco Predicting Outcome in Patients with Brain Injury: Differences between Machine Learning versus Conventional Statistics |
title | Predicting Outcome in Patients with Brain Injury: Differences between Machine Learning versus Conventional Statistics |
title_full | Predicting Outcome in Patients with Brain Injury: Differences between Machine Learning versus Conventional Statistics |
title_fullStr | Predicting Outcome in Patients with Brain Injury: Differences between Machine Learning versus Conventional Statistics |
title_full_unstemmed | Predicting Outcome in Patients with Brain Injury: Differences between Machine Learning versus Conventional Statistics |
title_short | Predicting Outcome in Patients with Brain Injury: Differences between Machine Learning versus Conventional Statistics |
title_sort | predicting outcome in patients with brain injury: differences between machine learning versus conventional statistics |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9496389/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36140369 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10092267 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cerasaantonio predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics AT tartariscogennaro predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics AT bruschettaroberta predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics AT ciancarelliirene predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics AT moronegiovanni predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics AT calabroroccosalvatore predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics AT pioggiagiovanni predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics AT toninpaolo predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics AT iosamarco predictingoutcomeinpatientswithbraininjurydifferencesbetweenmachinelearningversusconventionalstatistics |