Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU

被引:4
|
作者
Sikora, Andrea [1 ]
Zhang, Tianyi [2 ]
Murphy, David J. [3 ]
Smith, Susan E. [1 ]
Murray, Brian [4 ]
Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan [5 ,6 ]
Chen, Xianyan [2 ]
Buckley, Mitchell S. [7 ]
Rowe, Sandra [8 ]
Devlin, John W. [9 ,10 ]
机构
[1] Univ Georgia, Dept Clin & Adm Pharm, Coll Pharm, 1120 15th St,HM-118, Augusta, GA 30912 USA
[2] Univ Georgia, Dept Stat, Franklin Coll Arts & Sci, Athens, GA USA
[3] Emory Univ, Div Pulm Allergy Crit Care & Sleep Med, Atlanta, GA USA
[4] Univ N Carolina, Dept Pharm, Med Ctr, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[5] Emory Univ, Dept Biomed Informat, Sch Med, Atlanta, GA USA
[6] Georgia Inst Technol, Dept Biomed Engn, Atlanta, GA USA
[7] LaJolla Pharmaceut, Waltham, MA USA
[8] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Pharm, Portland, OR USA
[9] Northeastern Univ, Sch Pharm, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[10] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Div Pulm & Crit Care Med, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
来源
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS | 2023年 / 13卷 / 01期
关键词
CRITICALLY-ILL; MANAGEMENT; CARE; ACCUMULATION; PREVALENCE; SCORE;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-023-46735-3
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Fluid overload, while common in the ICU and associated with serious sequelae, is hard to predict and may be influenced by ICU medication use. Machine learning (ML) approaches may offer advantages over traditional regression techniques to predict it. We compared the ability of traditional regression techniques and different ML-based modeling approaches to identify clinically meaningful fluid overload predictors. This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted to an ICU >= 72 h between 10/1/2015 and 10/31/2020 with available fluid balance data. Models to predict fluid overload (a positive fluid balance >= 10% of the admission body weight) in the 48-72 h after ICU admission were created. Potential patient and medication fluid overload predictor variables (n=28) were collected at either baseline or 24 h after ICU admission. The optimal traditional logistic regression model was created using backward selection. Supervised, classification-based ML models were trained and optimized, including a meta-modeling approach. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared between the traditional and ML fluid prediction models. A total of 49 of the 391 (12.5%) patients developed fluid overload. Among the ML models, the XGBoost model had the highest performance (AUROC 0.78, PPV 0.27, NPV 0.94) for fluid overload prediction. The XGBoost model performed similarly to the final traditional logistic regression model (AUROC 0.70; PPV 0.20, NPV 0.94). Feature importance analysis revealed severity of illness scores and medication-related data were the most important predictors of fluid overload. In the context of our study, ML and traditional models appear to perform similarly to predict fluid overload in the ICU. Baseline severity of illness and ICU medication regimen complexity are important predictors of fluid overload.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU
    Andrea Sikora
    Tianyi Zhang
    David J. Murphy
    Susan E. Smith
    Brian Murray
    Rishikesan Kamaleswaran
    Xianyan Chen
    Mitchell S. Buckley
    Sandra Rowe
    John W. Devlin
    Scientific Reports, 13 (1)
  • [2] Unsupervised machine learning analysis to identify patterns of ICU medication use for fluid overload prediction
    Henry, Kelli
    Deng, Shiyuan
    Chen, Xianyan
    Zhang, Tianyi
    Devlin, John
    Murphy, David
    Smith, Susan
    Murray, Brian
    Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan
    Most, Amoreena
    Sikora, Andrea
    PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2025, 45 (02): : 76 - 86
  • [3] Prediction of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Hospitalization Risk in Hemodialysis: Machine Learning vs. Logistic Regression
    Lama, Suman Kumar
    Larkin, John W.
    Chaudhuri, Sheetal
    Jiao, Yue
    Winter, Anke
    StaussGrabo, Manuela
    Usvyat, Len A.
    Hymes, Jeffrey L.
    Maddux, Franklin W.
    Wheeler, David C.
    Stenvinkel, Peter
    Floege, Jurgen
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2024, 35 (10):
  • [4] Traditional vs. Machine Learning Techniques: Customer Propensity
    Rajnayak, Mamta A.
    Moitra, Snigdha
    Nahata, Charu
    INTELLIGENT INFORMATION AND DATABASE SYSTEMS (ACIIDS 2017), PT II, 2017, 10192 : 653 - 663
  • [5] UNSUPERVISED MACHINE LEARNING OF ICU MEDICATION USE PATTERNS TO PREDICT FLUID OVERLOAD
    Keats, Kelli
    Deng, Shiyuan
    Chen, Xianyan
    Zhang, Tianyi
    Devlin, John
    Murphy, David
    Smith, Susan
    Murray, Brian
    Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan
    Newsome, Andrea Sikora
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2024, 52
  • [6] The Start of Combustion Prediction for Methane-Fueled HCCI Engines: Traditional vs. Machine Learning Methods
    Namar, Mohammad Mostafa
    Jahanian, Omid
    Koten, Hasan
    MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING, 2022, 2022
  • [7] The Start of Combustion Prediction for Methane-Fueled HCCI Engines: Traditional vs. Machine Learning Methods
    Namar, Mohammad Mostafa
    Jahanian, Omid
    Koten, Hasan
    MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING, 2022, 2022
  • [8] Comparison of traditional regression modeling vs. AI modeling for the prediction of dental caries: a secondary data analysis
    Dey, Priya
    Ogwo, Chukwuebuka
    Tellez, Marisol
    FRONTIERS IN ORAL HEALTH, 2024, 5
  • [9] Fake News Detection: Traditional vs. Contemporary Machine Learning Approaches
    Binay, Aditya
    Binay, Anisha
    Register, Jordan
    JOURNAL OF INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, 2024, 23 (05)
  • [10] Risk analysis: Survival data analysis vs. machine learning. Application to Alzheimer prediction
    Huber-Carol, Catherine
    Gross, Shulamith
    Vonta, Filia
    COMPTES RENDUS MECANIQUE, 2019, 347 (11): : 817 - 830