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
  • [41] Machine learning vs. regression models to predict the risk of Legionella contamination in a hospital water network
    De Giglio, Osvalda
    Fasano, Fabrizio
    Diella, Giusy
    Spagnuolo, Valentina
    Triggiano, Francesco
    Lopuzzo, Marco
    Apollonio, Francesca
    Leone, Carla Maria
    Montagna, Maria Teresa
    ANNALI DI IGIENE MEDICINA PREVENTIVA E DI COMUNITA, 2025, 37 (01): : 128 - 140
  • [42] Stacking fault energy prediction for austenitic steels: thermodynamic modeling vs. machine learning
    Wang, Xin
    Xiong, Wei
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF ADVANCED MATERIALS, 2020, 21 (01) : 626 - 634
  • [43] Machine Learning vs. Statistical Model for Prediction Modelling: Application in Medical Imaging Research
    Ryu, Leeha
    Han, Kyunghwa
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 83 (06): : 1219 - 1228
  • [44] FLIPPED LEARNING: CLIL CLASSES VS. TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION
    Diaz-Carrion, Rosalia
    Franco-Leal, Noelia
    12TH INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE (INTED), 2018, : 4132 - 4136
  • [45] Risk prediction with machine learning and regression methods
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    van der Ploeg, Tjeerd
    Van Calster, Ben
    BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 56 (04) : 601 - 606
  • [46] Progression-Free Survival Prediction in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma after Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy: Machine Learning vs. Traditional Statistics
    Oei, Ronald Wihal
    Lyu, Yingchen
    Ye, Lulu
    Kong, Fangfang
    Du, Chengrun
    Zhai, Ruiping
    Xu, Tingting
    Shen, Chunying
    He, Xiayun
    Kong, Lin
    Hu, Chaosu
    Ying, Hongmei
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2021, 11 (08):
  • [47] Machine learning vs. hybrid machine learning model for optimal operation of a chiller
    Park, Sungho
    Ahn, Ki Uhn
    Hwang, Seungho
    Choi, Sunkyu
    Park, Cheol Soo
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, 2019, 25 (02) : 209 - 220
  • [48] Traditional Prediction Techniques and Machine Learning Approaches for Financial Time Series Analysis
    Cappello, Claudia
    Congedi, Antonella
    De Iaco, Sandra
    Mariella, Leonardo
    MATHEMATICS, 2025, 13 (03)
  • [49] An Analysis of Problem-Based Learning vs. Traditional Teaching among Students in Azerbaijan
    Sattarova, Ulkar
    Arsenijevic, Jelena
    Groot, Wim
    Terron-Lopez, Maria-Jose
    Velasco-Quintana, Paloma J.
    EDUCATION SCIENCES, 2023, 13 (12):
  • [50] NONLINEAR VS. LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS IN LACTATION CURVE PREDICTION
    Gantner, V.
    Jovanovac, S.
    Raguz, N.
    Solic, D.
    Kuterovac, K.
    BULGARIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, 2010, 16 (06): : 794 - 800