Why the study?
Machine-learning techniques are increasingly used to predict healthcare outcomes in cardiac rehabilitation, but a critical appraisal of existing ML-based prognosis predictive models and identification of key research gaps were needed.
Can machine-learning based prediction models accurately predict healthcare outcomes in patients participating in cardiac rehabilitation?
Can machine-learning based prediction models accurately predict healthcare outcomes in patients participating in cardiac rehabilitation?
While machine learning models show good predictive capabilities for cardiac rehabilitation outcomes, their readiness for clinical implementation is questionable due to a lack of external validation and a high risk of bias.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ML models warrant caution for clinical use absent validation; leaves open their adoption pending external testing.
Purpose CR has been proven to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with CVD. ML techniques are increasingly used to predict healthcare outcomes in various fields of medicine including CR. This systemic review aims to perform critical appraisal of existing ML based prognosis predictive model within CR and identify key research gaps in this area. Review methods A systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar from the inception of each database to 28th January 2024. The data extracted included clinical features, predicted outcomes, model development and validation as well as model performance metrics. Included studies underwent quality assessments using the IJMEDI. Summary 22 ML-based clinical models from 7 studies across multiple phases of CR were included. Most models were developed using smaller patient cohorts from 41 to 227, with one exception involving 2280 patients. The prediction objectives ranged from patient intention to initiate CR to graduate from outpatient CR along with interval physiological and psychological response to CR. The best-performing ML models reported AUC between 0.82 and 0.91, sensitivity from 0.77 to 0.95, indicating good prediction capabilities. However, none of them underwent calibration or external validation. Most studies raised concerns for bias. Readiness of these models for implement into practice is questionable. External validation of existing models and development of new models with robust methodology based on larger populations and targeting diverse clinical overcomes in CR are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tieliwaerdi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: