MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097208481 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037860

Predicting population health with machine learning: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3097208481 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Morgenstern, Emmalin Buajitti, Meghan O’Neill, Thomas Piggott, Vivek Goel, Daniel Fridman, Kathy Kornas, Laura C. Rosella

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteImpactInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicinePopulation healthMachine learningPopulationData scienceArtificial intelligenceMedical educationEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine how machine learning has been applied to prediction applications in population health contexts. Specifically, to describe which outcomes have been studied, the data sources most widely used and whether reporting of machine learning predictive models aligns with established reporting guidelines. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, INSPEC and ACM Digital Library were searched on 18 July 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included English articles published between 1980 and 2018 that used machine learning to predict population-health-related outcomes. We excluded studies that only used logistic regression or were restricted to a clinical context. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We summarised findings extracted from published reports, which included general study characteristics, aspects of model development, reporting of results and model discussion items. RESULTS: Of 22 618 articles found by our search, 231 were included in the review. The USA (n=71, 30.74%) and China (n=40, 17.32%) produced the most studies. Cardiovascular disease (n=22, 9.52%) was the most studied outcome. The median number of observations was 5414 (IQR=16 543.5) and the median number of features was 17 (IQR=31). Health records (n=126, 54.5%) and investigator-generated data (n=86, 37.2%) were the most common data sources. Many studies did not incorporate recommended guidelines on machine learning and predictive modelling. Predictive discrimination was commonly assessed using area under the receiver operator curve (n=98, 42.42%) and calibration was rarely assessed (n=22, 9.52%). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning applications in population health have concentrated on regions and diseases well represented in traditional data sources, infrequently using big data. Important aspects of model development were under-reported. Greater use of big data and reporting guidelines for predictive modelling could improve machine learning applications in population health. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered on the Open Science Framework on 17 July 2018 (available at https://osf.io/rnqe6/).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.575
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.048 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207