Huang Andrew W, Haslberger Martin, Coulibaly Neto, Galárraga Omar, Oganisian Arman, Belbasis Lazaros, Panagiotou Orestis A
Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Rhode Island, Providence, USA.
QUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Diagn Progn Res. 2022 Mar 24;6(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s41512-022-00119-9.
With rising cost pressures on health care systems, machine-learning (ML)-based algorithms are increasingly used to predict health care costs. Despite their potential advantages, the successful implementation of these methods could be undermined by biases introduced in the design, conduct, or analysis of studies seeking to develop and/or validate ML models. The utility of such models may also be negatively affected by poor reporting of these studies. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the reporting quality, methodological characteristics, and risk of bias of ML-based prediction models for individual-level health care spending.
We will systematically search PubMed and Embase to identify studies developing, updating, or validating ML-based models to predict an individual's health care spending for any medical condition, over any time period, and in any setting. We will exclude prediction models of aggregate-level health care spending, models used to infer causality, models using radiomics or speech parameters, models of non-clinically validated predictors (e.g., genomics), and cost-effectiveness analyses without predicting individual-level health care spending. We will extract data based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS), previously published research, and relevant recommendations. We will assess the adherence of ML-based studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and examine the inclusion of transparency and reproducibility indicators (e.g. statements on data sharing). To assess the risk of bias, we will apply the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Findings will be stratified by study design, ML methods used, population characteristics, and medical field.
Our systematic review will appraise the quality, reporting, and risk of bias of ML-based models for individualized health care cost prediction. This review will provide an overview of the available models and give insights into the strengths and limitations of using ML methods for the prediction of health spending.
随着医疗保健系统成本压力的不断上升,基于机器学习(ML)的算法越来越多地用于预测医疗保健成本。尽管这些方法具有潜在优势,但在旨在开发和/或验证ML模型的研究的设计、实施或分析中引入的偏差可能会破坏这些方法的成功实施。这些研究报告不佳也可能对这类模型的效用产生负面影响。在本系统评价中,我们旨在评估基于ML的个体层面医疗保健支出预测模型的报告质量、方法学特征和偏倚风险。
我们将系统检索PubMed和Embase,以识别开发、更新或验证基于ML的模型的研究,这些模型用于预测个体在任何医疗状况下、任何时间段和任何环境中的医疗保健支出。我们将排除总体层面医疗保健支出的预测模型、用于推断因果关系的模型、使用放射组学或语音参数的模型、非临床验证预测因子(如基因组学)的模型,以及未预测个体层面医疗保健支出的成本效益分析。我们将根据预测建模研究系统评价的关键评估和数据提取清单(CHARMS)、先前发表的研究以及相关建议提取数据。我们将评估基于ML的研究对个体预后或诊断多变量预测模型的透明报告(TRIPOD)声明的遵守情况,并检查透明度和可重复性指标(如数据共享声明)的纳入情况。为了评估偏倚风险,我们将应用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)。研究结果将按研究设计、使用的ML方法、人群特征和医学领域进行分层。
我们的系统评价将评估基于ML的个性化医疗保健成本预测模型的质量、报告和偏倚风险。本评价将概述可用模型,并深入了解使用ML方法预测医疗支出的优势和局限性。