Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug;64(8):2078-2087.
doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05645-z. Epub 2019 May 4.

Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review

Affiliations

Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes in Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review

Dennis Shung et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Risk stratification of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is recommended, but current risk assessment tools have variable performance. Machine learning (ML) has promise to improve risk assessment. We performed a systematic review to evaluate studies utilizing ML techniques for GIB. Bibliographic databases and conference abstracts were searched for studies with a population of overt GIB that used an ML algorithm with outcomes of mortality, rebleeding, hemostatic intervention, and/or hospital stay. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text studies, and extracted data from included studies. Risk of bias was assessed with an adapted Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were the primary assessment of performance with AUC ≥ 0.80 predefined as an acceptable threshold of good performance. Fourteen studies with 30 assessments of ML models met inclusion criteria. No study had low risk of bias. Median AUC reported in validation datasets for predefined outcomes of mortality, intervention, or rebleeding was 0.84 (range 0.40-0.98). AUCs were higher with artificial neural networks (median 0.93, range 0.78-0.98) than other ML models (0.81, range 0.40-0.92). ML performed better than clinical risk scores (Glasgow-Blatchford, Rockall, Child-Pugh, MELD) for mortality in upper GIB. Limitations include heterogeneity of ML models, inconsistent comparisons of ML models with clinical risk scores, and high risk of bias. ML generally provided good-excellent prognostic performance in patients with GIB, and artificial neural networks tended to outperform other ML models. ML was better than clinical risk scores for mortality in upper GIB.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal bleeding; Machine learning; Risk assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Lancet. 2015 May 16;385(9981):1966-74 - PubMed
    1. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 - PubMed
    1. Hepatology. 2003 Sep;38(3):599-612 - PubMed
    1. Dig Liver Dis. 2018 Mar;50(3):247-253 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 2009 Jan 3;373(9657):42-7 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources