Machine learning models for predicting coronary in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Background Machine-learning (ML) models are increasingly used to predict coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR), but evidence combines prognostic, diagnostic-radiomics, and image-reconstruction tasks and often lacks uncertainty around area-under-the-curve (AUC) estimates. We conducted a task-aware systematic review and meta-analysis with study-level auditing of AUC provenance. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched through 3 November 2024. Tabular models predicting subsequent coronary ISR after PCI were pooled within model families using logit-AUC random-effects REML, with one estimate per cohort and family. Missing 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reconstructed using Hanley–McNeil variance and the logit-delta method when validation/test case and non-case counts were available or transparently approximated. Modified Hartung–Knapp and sensitivity analyses assessed robustness; diagnostic radiomics was analyzed separately. Results Twelve studies represented 16,964 nominal participants/observations. Pooled AUCs for subsequent ISR prediction were 0.84 (95% CI 0.67–0.94; I 2 = 98.4%) for random forest (RF), 0.74 (0.71–0.77; I 2 = 0%) for logistic regression (LR), 0.59 (0.46–0.71; I 2 = 23.1%) for support-vector machines, and 0.73 (0.70–0.76; I 2 = 0%) for DNN/MLP. The modified Hartung–Knapp RF interval widened to 0.52–0.96. Restricting analysis to independent patient-level cohorts reporting conventional published 95% CIs yielded AUCs of 0.89 (0.54–0.98) for RF and 0.74 (0.70–0.77) for LR. RF subgroup AUCs were 0.91 (0.70–0.98) for DES-only and 0.72 (0.71–0.73) for mixed BMS/DES cohorts. Age and lipid-related variables appeared in 50% of studies. Conclusions RF showed the highest discrimination but substantial instability, whereas LR was more consistent. Prospective external validation is required before algorithm ranking or clinical deployment.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.