Exploring Machine Learning Applications in Pediatric Asthma Management: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of machine learning (ML) in predicting asthma-related outcomes in children presents a novel approach in pediatric health care. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to analyze studies published since 2019, focusing on ML algorithms, their applications, and predictive performances. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL and Embase on Ovid, the Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science (core collection). The search covered the period from January 1, 2019, to July 18, 2023. Studies applying ML models in predicting asthma-related outcomes in children aged <18 years were included. Covidence was used for citation management, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. RESULTS: From 1231 initial articles, 15 met our inclusion criteria. The sample size ranged from 74 to 87,413 patients. Most studies used multiple ML techniques, with logistic regression (n=7, 47%) and random forests (n=6, 40%) being the most common. Key outcomes included predicting asthma exacerbations, classifying asthma phenotypes, predicting asthma diagnoses, and identifying potential risk factors. For predicting exacerbations, recurrent neural networks and XGBoost showed high performance, with XGBoost achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.76. In classifying asthma phenotypes, support vector machines were highly effective, achieving an AUROC of 0.79. For diagnosis prediction, artificial neural networks outperformed logistic regression, with an AUROC of 0.63. To identify risk factors focused on symptom severity and lung function, random forests achieved an AUROC of 0.88. Sound-based studies distinguished wheezing from nonwheezing and asthmatic from normal coughs. The risk of bias assessment revealed that most studies (n=8, 53%) exhibited low to moderate risk, ensuring a reasonable level of confidence in the findings. Common limitations across studies included data quality issues, sample size constraints, and interpretability concerns. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the diverse application of ML in predicting pediatric asthma outcomes, with each model offering unique strengths and challenges. Future research should address data quality, increase sample sizes, and enhance model interpretability to optimize ML utility in clinical settings for pediatric asthma management.
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 | 0.013 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".