Previously submitted to: JMIR Medical Informatics (no longer under consideration since Jul 09, 2022)
Date Submitted: Apr 6, 2022
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Machine Learning Prediction of Stroke Occurrence: A Systematic Review
ABSTRACT
Background:
Machine learning is nowadays commonly used for disease prediction, including cardiovascular disease. There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms for stroke risk prediction models.
Objective:
A systematic review was conducted to identify and comprehensively evaluate the available evidence.
Methods:
Relevant studies were identified from the three electronic databases (i) MEDLINE via Pubmed, (ii) Scopus, and (iii) IEEE Xplore from inception to 1st December 2020. Out of 12,626 studies identified, 40 used machine learning for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke risk prediction models.
Results:
Synthesis without meta-analysis identified that a boosting algorithm (median C-statistics = 0.9 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.88-0.92)), and neural network (median C-statistic = 0.80 (IQR: 0.79-0.86)) performed best among ML models in the low risk of bias studies. Conversely, the support vector machine performed best in overall (both low and high risk of bias) studies (median C-statistic = 0.89 (IQR: 0.81-0.97)).
Conclusions:
The systematic review found promising results of the ML algorithm model performances compare with the gold standard conventional models, such as FSRP (C-statistic 0.653) and revised FSRP (C-statistic 0.716). In term of the algorithm, boosting and neural networks are robust, but are considered as black-box models, since they are composed of non-linearity and complex algorithms. It remains questionable whether a physician would adapt these algorithms to use in a real clinical setting. Moreover, less than half of the studies (16 out of 40) were at low risk of bias in our systematic review. More researches with good methodology and study design, alongside explainable and good performance models, may become available in the future. Clinical Trial: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (ID: CRD42021234081).
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.