A systematic review of clinical health conditions predicted by machine learning diagnostic and prognostic models trained or validated using real-world primary health care data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim With the rapid advances in technology and data science, machine learning (ML) is being adopted by the health care sector; but there is a lack of literature addressing the health conditions targeted by the ML prediction models within primary health care (PHC). To fill this gap in knowledge, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines to identify the health conditions targeted by ML in PHC. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Elsevier, BioRxiv, Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), and IEEE Xplore databases for studies published from January 1990 to January 2022. We included any primary study addressing ML diagnostic or prognostic predictive models that were supplied completely or partially by real-world PHC data. We performed literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Health conditions were categorized according to international classification of diseases. Extracted date were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results We identified 109 studies investigating 42 health conditions. These studies included 273 ML prediction models supplied by the PHC data of 24.2 million participants from 19 countries. We found that 82% of the studies were retrospective. 76.6% of the studies reported diagnostic predictive ML models. 77% of all reported models aimed for models’ development without external validation. Risk of bias assessment revealed that 90.8% of the studies were of high or unclear risk of bias. The most frequently reported health conditions were Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes mellitus. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review to investigate the extent of the health conditions targeted by the ML prediction models within PHC settings. Our study provides an important summary on the presently available ML models in PHC, which can be used in further research and implementation efforts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".