Abstract
AbstractLarge and complex data sets are increasingly available for research in critical care. To analyze these data, researchers use techniques commonly referred to as statistical learning or machine learning (ML). The latter is known for large successes in the field of diagnostics, for example, by identification of radiological anomalies. In other research areas, such as clustering and prediction studies, there is more discussion regarding the benefit and efficiency of ML techniques compared with statistical learning. In this viewpoint, we aim to explain commonly used statistical learning and ML techniques and provide guidance for responsible use in the case of clustering and prediction questions in critical care. Clustering studies have been increasingly popular in critical care research, aiming to inform how patients can be characterized, classified, or treated differently. An important challenge for clustering studies is to ensure and assess generalizability. This limits the application of findings in these studies toward individual patients. In the case of predictive questions, there is much discussion as to what algorithm should be used to most accurately predict outcome. Aspects that determine usefulness of ML, compared with statistical techniques, include the volume of the data, the dimensionality of the preferred model, and the extent of missing data. There are areas in which modern ML methods may be preferred. However, efforts should be made to implement statistical frameworks (e.g., for dealing with missing data or measurement error, both omnipresent in clinical data) in ML methods. To conclude, there are important opportunities but also pitfalls to consider when performing clustering or predictive studies with ML techniques. We advocate careful valuation of new data-driven findings. More interaction is needed between the engineer mindset of experts in ML methods, the insight in bias of epidemiologists, and the probabilistic thinking of statisticians to extract as much information and knowledge from data as possible, while avoiding harm.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine,Neurology (clinical)
Reference114 articles.
1. Carteron L, Bouzat P, Oddo M. Cerebral microdialysis monitoring to improve individualized neurointensive care therapy: an update of recent clinical data. Front Neurol. 2017;8:1–10.
2. Hutchinson PJ, Jalloh I, Helmy A, Carpenter KLH, Rostami E, Bellander BM, et al. Consensus statement from the 2014 international microdialysis forum. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1517–28.
3. Fleuren LM, de Bruin DP, Tonutti M, Lalisang RCA, Elbers PWG, Gommers D, et al. Large-scale ICU data sharing for global collaboration: the first 1633 critically ill COVID-19 patients in the Dutch Data Warehouse. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 11];47:478–81. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06361-x
4. Hyland SL, Faltys M, Hüser M, Lyu X, Gumbsch T, Esteban C, et al. Early prediction of circulatory failure in the intensive care unit using machine learning. Nat Med 2020 263 [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group
5. 2020 [cited 2021 Nov 11];26:364-73. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0789-4
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献