» Articles » PMID: 39695968

The Anesthesiologist's Guide to Critically Assessing Machine Learning Research: a Narrative Review

Overview
Journal BMC Anesthesiol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2024 Dec 19
PMID 39695968
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Machine Learning (ML), has developed systems capable of performing tasks that require human intelligence. In anesthesiology and other medical fields, AI applications can improve the precision and efficiency of daily clinical practice, and can also facilitate a personalized approach to patient care, which can lead to improved outcomes and quality of care. ML has been successfully applied in various settings of daily anesthesiology practice, such as predicting acute kidney injury, optimizing anesthetic doses, and managing postoperative nausea and vomiting. The critical evaluation of ML models in healthcare is crucial to assess their validity, safety, and clinical applicability. Evaluation metrics allow an objective statistical assessment of model performance. Tools such as Shapley Values (SHAP) help interpret how individual variables contribute to model predictions. Transparency in reporting is key in maintaining trust in these technologies and to ensure their use follows ethical principles, aiming to reduce safety concerns while also benefiting patients. Understanding evaluation metrics is essential, as they provide detailed information on model performance and their ability to discriminate between individual class rates. This article offers a comprehensive framework in assessing the validity, applicability, and limitations of models, guiding responsible and effective integration of ML technologies into clinical practice. A balance between innovation, patient safety and ethical considerations must be pursued.

References
1.
Luo X, Kang Y, Duan S, Yan P, Song G, Zhang N . Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury Following Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: Model Development and Validation Study. J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e41142. PMC: 9893730. DOI: 10.2196/41142. View

2.
Bishara A, Wong A, Wang L, Chopra M, Fan W, Lin A . Opal: an implementation science tool for machine learning clinical decision support in anesthesia. J Clin Monit Comput. 2021; 36(5):1367-1377. PMC: 9275816. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-021-00774-1. View

3.
Collins G, Dhiman P, Ma J, Schlussel M, Archer L, Van Calster B . Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 1): from development to external validation. BMJ. 2024; 384:e074819. PMC: 10772854. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074819. View

4.
van der Ven W, Veelo D, Wijnberge M, van der Ster B, Vlaar A, Geerts B . One of the first validations of an artificial intelligence algorithm for clinical use: The impact on intraoperative hypotension prediction and clinical decision-making. Surgery. 2020; 169(6):1300-1303. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.09.041. View

5.
Tsai F, Chang Y, Chiu Y, Sheu B, Hsu M, Yeh H . Machine Learning Model for Anesthetic Risk Stratification for Gynecologic and Obstetric Patients: Cross-Sectional Study Outlining a Novel Approach for Early Detection. JMIR Form Res. 2024; 8:e54097. PMC: 11375379. DOI: 10.2196/54097. View