Primary Care Asthma Attack Prediction Models for Adults: A Systematic Review of Reported Methodologies and Outcomes
Lijun Ma,Holly Tibble
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jaa.s445450
2024-03-14
Journal of Asthma and Allergy
Abstract:Lijun Ma, 1, &ast Holly Tibble 1, 2, &ast 1 Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland; 2 Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Edinburgh, Scotland &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Holly Tibble, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, Email Prognostic models hold great potential for predicting asthma exacerbations, providing opportunities for early intervention, and are a popular area of current research. However, it is unclear how models should be compared and contrasted, given their differences in both design and performance, particularly with a view to potential implementation in routine practice. This systematic review aimed to identify novel predictive models of asthma attacks in adults and compare differences in construction related to populations, outcome definitions, prediction time horizons, algorithms, validation, and performance estimation. Twenty-five studies were identified for comparison, with varying definitions of asthma attacks and prediction event time horizons ranging from 15 days to 30 months. The most commonly used algorithm was logistic regression (20/25 studies); however, none of the six which tested multiple algorithms identified it as highest performing algorithm. The effect of various study design characteristics on performance was evaluated in order to provide context to the limitations of highly performing models. Models used a variety of constructs, which affected both their performance and their viability for implementation in routine practice. Consultation with stakeholders is necessary to identify priorities for model refinement and to create a benchmark of acceptable performance for implementation in clinical practice. Keywords: clinical decision support, machine learning, prediction modelling, asthma exacerbation, systematic review During an asthma attack, people with asthma experience a temporary exacerbation of their symptoms, including wheezing, coughing, breathlessness, and chest tightness, which can result in the need for emergency treatment to prevent fatality. 1 There are many possible triggers of asthma exacerbation, including viruses, allergies, irritants, adverse drug reactions, and air pollutants. 2–7 Asthma presents with high heterogeneity, 8–10 so early identification of worsening of symptoms or lung function is a challenge for clinicians and patients, but there is great hope that machine learning tools may be able to assist and create pathways for early intervention. A recent report by Asthma and Lung UK estimated that respiratory conditions, including asthma, cost the UK economy £188 billion in 2019, highlighting the value in investing in the development of efficient tools to improve clinical outcomes and implement timely interventions. 11 In recent years, two systematic reviews have explored asthma attack prediction models with slightly different characteristics and objectives. 12,13 The 2017 systematic review by Loymans et al 12 focused on investigating asthma attack predictors and assessing model performance. In contrast, Bridge et al 13 (2020, but only including papers up to 2017) focused on comparing the methodology used in the development of prediction models for future asthma attacks. They primarily reported the impact of different model algorithms on predictive performance. The only major difference in their study inclusion and exclusion criteria, however, was that Bridge et al 13 included studies of patients aged 12 years and over, whereas Loymans et al 12 included studies with a mean population age over 18. Both reviews place a strong focus on how to obtain the highest model prediction performance. While strong predictive performance is clearly important for maximizing patient benefit and increasing user trust in the tool, which is required to promote integration into existing care pathways, there are elements to the model which may be even more influential on their impact. Some important considerations for the specification of such a model include the explainability of the results (either overall, or for specific patients), the target populations, and the outcome definition (including time horizon of prediction). The aim of this study was to provide an updated review of the literature, including studies published since 2020 exploring more complex and intensive machine learning approaches. In addition, we aimed to reflect on the differences of these models with a view to their implementation in clinical practice and the balance between desirability and usability with predictive performance. The methods and results of this systematic review were reported in line with the Preferred Reporti -Abstract Truncated-
immunology,allergy,respiratory system