The Use of Machine Learning for Analyzing Real-World Data in Disease Prediction and Management: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) and big data analytics are rapidly transforming health care, particularly disease prediction, management, and personalized care. With the increasing availability of real-world data (RWD) from diverse sources, such as electronic health records (EHRs), patient registries, and wearable devices, ML techniques present substantial potential to enhance clinical outcomes. Despite this promise, challenges such as data quality, model transparency, generalizability, and integration into clinical practice persist. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to examine the use of ML for analyzing RWD in disease prediction and management, identifying the most commonly used ML methods, prevalent disease types, study designs, and the sources of real-world evidence (RWE). It also explores the strengths and limitations of current practices, offering insights for future improvements. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to identify studies using ML techniques for analyzing RWD in disease prediction and management. The search focused on extracting data regarding the ML algorithms applied; disease categories studied; types of study designs (eg, clinical trials and cohort studies); and the sources of RWE, including EHRs, patient registries, and wearable devices. Studies published between 2014 and 2024 were included to ensure the analysis of the most recent advances in the field. RESULTS: This review identified 57 studies that met the inclusion criteria, with a total sample size of >150,000 patients. The most frequently applied ML methods were random forest (n=24, 42%), logistic regression (n=21, 37%), and support vector machines (n=18, 32%). These methods were predominantly used for predictive modeling across disease areas, including cardiovascular diseases (n=19, 33%), cancer (n=9, 16%), and neurological disorders (n=6, 11%). RWE was primarily sourced from EHRs, patient registries, and wearable devices. A substantial portion of studies (n=38, 67%) focused on improving clinical decision-making, patient stratification, and treatment optimization. Among these studies, 14 (25%) focused on decision-making; 12 (21%) on health care outcomes, such as quality of life, recovery rates, and adverse events; and 11 (19%) on survival prediction, particularly in oncology and chronic diseases. For example, random forest models for cardiovascular disease prediction demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI 0.81-0.89), while support vector machine models for cancer prognosis achieved an accuracy of 83% (P=.04). Despite the promising outcomes, many (n=34, 60%) studies faced challenges related to data quality, model interpretability, and ensuring generalizability across diverse patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the significant potential of ML and big data analytics in health care, especially for improving disease prediction and management. However, to fully realize the benefits of these technologies, future research must focus on addressing the challenges of data quality, enhancing model transparency, and ensuring the broader applicability of ML models across diverse populations and clinical settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,034 | 0,160 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».