scholarly journals The use of machine learning algorithms in recommender systems: A systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 97 ◽  
pp. 205-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivens Portugal ◽  
Paulo Alencar ◽  
Donald Cowan
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Recommender Systems ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms

Diagnostic test accuracy for use of machine learning in diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sun Jae Moon ◽  
Jin Seub Hwang ◽  
Rajesh Kana ◽  
John Torous ◽  
Jung Won Kim
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Structural Mri ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Test Accuracy

BACKGROUND Over the recent years, machine learning algorithms have been more widely and increasingly applied in biomedical fields. In particular, its application has been drawing more attention in the field of psychiatry, for instance, as diagnostic tests/tools for autism spectrum disorder. However, given its complexity and potential clinical implications, there is ongoing need for further research on its accuracy. OBJECTIVE The current study aims to summarize the evidence for the accuracy of use of machine learning algorithms in diagnosing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete (with OpenDissertations), PsyINFO and IEEE Xplore Digital Library databases were searched on November 28th, 2018. Studies, which used a machine learning algorithm partially or fully in classifying ASD from controls and provided accuracy measures, were included in our analysis. Bivariate random effects model was applied to the pooled data in meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was used to investigate and resolve the source of heterogeneity between studies. True-positive, false-positive, false negative and true-negative values from individual studies were used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity values, draw SROC curves, and obtain area under the curve (AUC) and partial AUC. RESULTS A total of 43 studies were included for the final analysis, of which meta-analysis was performed on 40 studies (53 samples with 12,128 participants). A structural MRI subgroup meta-analysis (12 samples with 1,776 participants) showed the sensitivity at 0.83 (95% CI-0.76 to 0.89), specificity at 0.84 (95% CI -0.74 to 0.91), and AUC/pAUC at 0.90/0.83. An fMRI/deep neural network (DNN) subgroup meta-analysis (five samples with 1,345 participants) showed the sensitivity at 0.69 (95% CI- 0.62 to 0.75), the specificity at 0.66 (95% CI -0.61 to 0.70), and AUC/pAUC at 0.71/0.67. CONCLUSIONS Machine learning algorithms that used structural MRI features in diagnosis of ASD were shown to have accuracy that is similar to currently used diagnostic tools.

scholarly journals Early Prediction of Sepsis in the ICU using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Moor ◽  
Bastian Rieck ◽  
Max Horn ◽  
Catherine Jutzeler ◽  
Karsten Borgwardt
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Biomarker Discovery ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Early Prediction

Background: Sepsis is among the leading causes of death in intensive care units (ICU) worldwide and its recognition, particularly in the early stages of the disease, remains a medical challenge. The advent of an affluence of available digital health data has created a setting in which machine learning can be used for digital biomarker discovery, with the ultimate goal to advance the early recognition of sepsis. Objective: To systematically review and evaluate studies employing machine learning for the prediction of sepsis in the ICU. Data sources: Using Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, we systematically searched the existing literature for machine learning-driven sepsis onset prediction for patients in the ICU. Study eligibility criteria: All peer-reviewed articles using machine learning for the prediction of sepsis onset in adult ICU patients were included. Studies focusing on patient populations outside the ICU were excluded. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Moreover, a quality assessment of all eligible studies was performed. Results: Out of 974 identified articles, 22 and 21 met the criteria to be included in the systematic review and quality assessment, respectively. A multitude of machine learning algorithms were applied to refine the early prediction of sepsis. The quality of the studies ranged from "poor" (satisfying less than 40% of the quality criteria) to "very good" (satisfying more than 90% of the quality criteria). The majority of the studies (n= 19, 86.4%) employed an offline training scenario combined with a horizon evaluation, while two studies implemented an online scenario (n= 2,9.1%). The massive inter-study heterogeneity in terms of model development, sepsis definition, prediction time windows, and outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. Last, only 2 studies provided publicly-accessible source code and data sources fostering reproducibility. Limitations: Articles were only eligible for inclusion when employing machine learning algorithms for the prediction of sepsis onset in the ICU. This restriction led to the exclusion of studies focusing on the prediction of septic shock, sepsis-related mortality, and patient populations outside the ICU. Conclusions and key findings: A growing number of studies employs machine learning to31optimise the early prediction of sepsis through digital biomarker discovery. This review, however, highlights several shortcomings of the current approaches, including low comparability and reproducibility. Finally, we gather recommendations how these challenges can be addressed before deploying these models in prospective analyses. Systematic review registration number: CRD42020200133

scholarly journals Machine Learning Algorithms in Cardiology Domain: A Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgy Kopanitsa ◽  
Aleksei Dudchenko ◽  
Matthias Ganzinger
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Learning System ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Conference Papers ◽  
Huge Variety

BACKGROUND It has been shown in previous decades, that Machine Learning (ML) has a huge variety of possible implementations in medicine and can be very helpful. Neretheless, cardiovascular diseases causes about third of of all global death. Does ML work in cardiology domain and what is current progress in that regard? OBJECTIVE The review aims at (1) identifying studies where machine-learning algorithms were applied in the cardiology domain; (2) providing an overview based on identified literature of the state of the art of the ML algorithm applying in cardiology. METHODS For organizing this review, we have employed PRISMA statement. PRISMA is a set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focused on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic review. For the review, we have adopted PRISMA statement and have identified the following items: review questions, information sources, search strategy, selection criteria. RESULTS In total 27 scientific articles or conference papers written in English and reporting about implementation of an ML-method or algorithm in cardiology domain were included in this review. We have examined four aspects: aims of ML-systems, methods, datasets and evaluation metrics. CONCLUSIONS We suppose, this systematic review will be helpful for researchers developing machine-learning system for a medical domain and in particular for cardiology.

scholarly journals Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Bannach-Brown ◽  
Piotr Przybyła ◽  
James Thomas ◽  
Andrew S. C. Rice ◽  
Sophia Ananiadou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms

scholarly journals Machine Learning Algorithms in Cardiology Domain: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-40
Author(s):  
Aleksei Dudchenko ◽  
Matthias Ganzinger ◽  
Georgy Kopanitsa
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Neural Networks ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Conference Papers ◽  
Huge Variety ◽  
Learning Data

Background: It could be seen in the previous decades that Machine Learning (ML) has a huge variety of possible implementations in medicine and can be of great use. Nevertheless, cardiovascular diseases cause about a third of the total global deaths. Does ML work in the cardiology domain and what is the current progress in this regard? To answer this question, we present a systematic review aiming at 1) identifying studies where machine learning algorithms were applied in the domain of cardiology; 2) providing an overview based on the existing literature about the state-of-the-art ML algorithms applied in cardiology. Methods: For organizing this review, we adopted the PRISMA statement. We used PubMed as the search engine and identified the search keywords as “Machine Learning”, “Data Mining”, “Cardiology”, and “Cardiovascular” in combinations. Scientific articles and conference papers published between 2013-2017 reporting about implementations of ML algorithms in the domain of cardiology have been included in this review. Results: In total, 27 relevant papers were included. We examined four aspects: the aims of ML systems, the methods, datasets, and evaluation metrics. The major part of the paper was aimed at predicting the risk of mortality. A promising branch of Machine Learning, the ‘Reinforcement Learning’, was also never proposed in the observed papers. Tree-based ensembles are common and show good results, whereas deep neural networks are poorly represented. Most papers (20 of 27) have used datasets that are hardly available for other researchers, e.g. unpublished local registries. We also identified 28 different metrics for model evaluation. This variety of metrics makes it difficult to compare the results of different researches. Conclusion: We suppose that this systematic review will be helpful for researchers developing medical machine learning systems and for cardiology in particular.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document