14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Neural Networks for Survival Prediction in Medicine Using Prognostic Factors: A Review and Critical Appraisal

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Survival analysis deals with the expected duration of time until one or more events of interest occur. Time to the event of interest may be unobserved, a phenomenon commonly known as right censoring, which renders the analysis of these data challenging. Over the years, machine learning algorithms have been developed and adapted to right-censored data. Neural networks have been repeatedly employed to build clinical prediction models in healthcare with a focus on cancer and cardiology. We present the first ever attempt at a large-scale review of survival neural networks (SNNs) with prognostic factors for clinical prediction in medicine. This work provides a comprehensive understanding of the literature (24 studies from 1990 to August 2021, global search in PubMed). Relevant manuscripts are classified as methodological/technical (novel methodology or new theoretical model; 13 studies) or applications (11 studies). We investigate how researchers have used neural networks to fit survival data for prediction. There are two methodological trends: either time is added as part of the input features and a single output node is specified, or multiple output nodes are defined for each time interval. A critical appraisal of model aspects that should be designed and reported more carefully is performed. We identify key characteristics of prediction models (i.e., number of patients/predictors, evaluation measures, calibration), and compare ANN's predictive performance to the Cox proportional hazards model. The median sample size is 920 patients, and the median number of predictors is 7. Major findings include poor reporting (e.g., regarding missing data, hyperparameters) as well as inaccurate model development/validation. Calibration is neglected in more than half of the studies. Cox models are not developed to their full potential and claims for the performance of SNNs are exaggerated. Light is shed on the current state of art of SNNs in medicine with prognostic factors. Recommendations are made for the reporting of clinical prediction models. Limitations are discussed, and future directions are proposed for researchers who seek to develop existing methodology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Regression Models and Life-Tables

              D R Cox (1972)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Comput Math Methods Med
                Comput Math Methods Med
                cmmm
                Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
                Hindawi
                1748-670X
                1748-6718
                2022
                30 September 2022
                : 2022
                : 1176060
                Affiliations
                1Mathematical Institute Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 1, 2333 Leiden, ZA, Netherlands
                2Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, 2333 Leiden, ZA, Netherlands
                3Department of Statistics, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Ave E. Mounier 83/11, 1200 Brussels, Belgium
                4Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Oakfield Grove, Clifton, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK
                5MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK
                6Trial and Data Center, Princess Máxima Center for pediatric oncology (PMC), Heidelberglaan 25, 3584 Utrecht, UT, Netherlands
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Reinoud Maex

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8748-3241
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6923-4388
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5588-0277
                Article
                10.1155/2022/1176060
                9553343
                36238497
                08c27386-866d-4c3b-ac85-86279ea28082
                Copyright © 2022 Georgios Kantidakis et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 October 2021
                : 26 August 2022
                : 13 September 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: UK Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol
                Award ID: MC_UU_00011/3
                Funded by: Leiden University
                Funded by: EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group
                Categories
                Review Article

                Applied mathematics
                Applied mathematics

                Comments

                Comment on this article