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
. 2024 Nov 5:7:1477447.
doi: 10.3389/frai.2024.1477447. eCollection 2024.

Predicting patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review for the artificial intelligence-guided patient preference predictor

Affiliations

Predicting patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review for the artificial intelligence-guided patient preference predictor

Jeremy A Balch et al. Front Artif Intell. .

Abstract

Background: The algorithmic patient preference predictor (PPP) has been proposed to aid in decision making for incapacitated patients in the absence of advanced directives. Ethical and legal challenges aside, multiple practical barriers exist for building a personalized PPP. Here, we examine previous work using machine learning to predict patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for capacitated patients undergoing diverse procedures, therapies, and life events. Demonstrating robust performance in predicting PROMs for capacitated patients could suggest opportunities for developing a model tailored to incapacitated ones.

Methods: We performed a scoping review of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to capture studies using machine learning to predict PROMs following a medical event alongside qualitative studies exploring a theoretical PPP.

Results: Sixty-eight studies used machine learning to evaluate PROMs; an additional 20 studies focused on a theoretical PPP. For PROMs, orthopedic surgeries (n = 33) and spinal surgeries (n = 12) were the most common medical event. Studies used demographic (n = 30), pre-event PROMs (n = 52), comorbidities (n = 29), social determinants of health (n = 30), and intraoperative variables (n = 124) as predictors. Thirty-four different PROMs were used as the target outcome. Evaluation metrics varied by task, but performance was overall poor to moderate for the best reported scores. In models that used feature importance, pre-event PROMs were the most predictive of post-event PROMs. Fairness assessments were rare (n = 6). These findings reinforce the necessity of the integrating patient values and preferences, beyond demographic factors, to improve the development of personalized PPP models for incapacitated patients.

Conclusion: The primary objective of a PPP is to estimate patient-reported quality of life following an intervention. Use of machine learning to predict PROMs for capacitated patients introduces challenges and opportunities for building a personalized PPP for incapacitated patients without advanced directives.

Keywords: clinical decision support; fairness; machine learn; palliative care; patient reported outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Article flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of studies by field.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Input variables for patient reported outcome measure (PROM) prediction tasks.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Machine learning models employed for patient reported outcome measure (PROM) prediction tasks.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) performance metric distribution.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agochukwu-Mmonu N., Murali A., Wittmann D., Denton B., Dunn R. L., Montie J., et al. . (2022). Development and validation of dynamic multivariate prediction models of sexual function recovery in patients with prostate Cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from the MUSIC statewide collaborative. Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 40, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.03.009, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alaiti R. K., Vallio C. S., Assunção J. H., Andrade e Silva F. B., Gracitelli M. E. C., Neto A. A. F., et al. . (2023). Using machine learning to predict nonachievement of clinically significant outcomes after rotator cuff repair. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 11:6180. doi: 10.1177/23259671231206180 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ames C. P., et al. . (2019). Development of predictive models for all individual questions of SRS-22R after adult spinal deformity surgery: a step toward individualized medicine. Eur. Spine J. 28, 1998–2011. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06079-x, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Assistant P., et al. . Predicting consumer behaviour with artificial intelligence. (2023).
    1. Becerra Pérez M. M., Menear M., Brehaut J. C., Légaré F. (2016). Extent and predictors of decision regret about health care decisions: a systematic review. Med. Decis. Mak. 36, 777–790. doi: 10.1177/0272989x16636113, PMID: - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources