Optimal intensive care outcome prediction over time using machine learning

被引:58
|
作者
Meiring, Christopher [1 ]
Dixit, Abhishek [1 ]
Harris, Steve [2 ]
MacCallum, Niall S. [2 ]
Brealey, David A. [2 ]
Watkinson, Peter J. [3 ]
Jones, Andrew [4 ]
Ashworth, Simon [5 ]
Beale, Richard [4 ]
Brett, Stephen J. [5 ]
Singer, Mervyn [2 ]
Ercole, Ari [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Div Anaesthesia, Cambridge, England
[2] UCL, Bloomsbury Inst Intens Care Med, London, England
[3] Univ Oxford, John Radcliffe Hosp, Nuffield Dept Clin Neurosci, Oxford, England
[4] St Thomas Hosp, Guys & St Thomas NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Intens Care, Westminster Bridge Rd, London, England
[5] Imperial Coll Healthcare NHS Trust, Ctr Perioperat Med & Crit Care Res, Praed St, London, England
来源
PLOS ONE | 2018年 / 13卷 / 11期
关键词
ORGAN DYSFUNCTION SCORE; SEPTIC SHOCK; APACHE-III; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; LIMITED TRIALS; SAPS-II; UNIT; END; PATIENT; SEPSIS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0206862
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
Background Prognostication is an essential tool for risk adjustment and decision making in the intensive care unit (ICU). Research into prognostication in ICU has so far been limited to data from admission or the first 24 hours. Most ICU admissions last longer than this, decisions are made throughout an admission, and some admissions are explicitly intended as time-limited prognostic trials. Despite this, temporal changes in prognostic ability during ICU admission has received little attention to date. Current predictive models, in the form of prognostic clinical tools, are typically derived from linear models and do not explicitly handle incremental information from trends. Machine learning (ML) allows predictive models to be developed which use non-linear predictors and complex interactions between variables, thus allowing incorporation of trends in measured variables over time; this has made it possible to investigate prognosis throughout an admission. Methods and findings This study uses ML to assess the predictability of ICU mortality as a function of time. Logistic regression against physiological data alone outperformed APACHE-II and demonstrated several important interactions including between lactate & noradrenaline dose, between lactate & MAP, and between age & MAP consistent with the current sepsis definitions. ML models consistently outperformed logistic regression with Deep Learning giving the best results. Predictive power was maximal on the second day and was further improved by incorporating trend data. Using a limited range of physiological and demographic variables, the best machine learning model on the first day showed an area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.883 (sigma = 0.008), compared to 0.846 (sigma = 0.010) for a logistic regression from the same predictors and 0.836 (sigma= 0.007) for a logistic regression based on the APACHE-II score. Adding information gathered on the second day of admission improved the maximum AUC to 0.895 (sigma= 0.008). Beyond the second day, predictive ability declined. Conclusion This has implications for decision making in intensive care and provides a justification for time-limited trials of ICU therapy; the assessment of prognosis over more than one day may be a valuable strategy as new information on the second day helps to differentiate outcomes. New ML models based on trend data beyond the first day could greatly improve upon current risk stratification tools.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Prediction of Acid-Base and Potassium Imbalances in Intensive Care Patients Using Machine Learning Techniques
    Phetrittikun, Ratchakit
    Suvirat, Kerdkiat
    Horsiritham, Kanakorn
    Ingviya, Thammasin
    Chaichulee, Sitthichok
    [J]. DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 13 (06)
  • [32] Real-time optimal protocol prediction of quantum key distribution using machine learning
    Arthi, R.
    Nayana, J. S.
    Mondal, Rajarshee
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERVASIVE COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS, 2023, 19 (05) : 689 - 697
  • [33] Developing machine learning models for prediction of mortality in the medical intensive care unit
    Nistal-Nuno, Beatriz
    [J]. COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE, 2022, 216
  • [34] Prediction of sepsis for the intensive care unit patients with stream mining and machine learning
    Akyuz, Melike
    Dogan, Yunus
    Kocyigit, Atakan
    Miran, Ayse Pinar
    [J]. PAMUKKALE UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES-PAMUKKALE UNIVERSITESI MUHENDISLIK BILIMLERI DERGISI, 2024, 30 (03): : 354 - 365
  • [35] Machine Learning for Early Prediction of Sepsis in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Patients
    Alanazi, Abdullah
    Aldakhil, Lujain
    Aldhoayan, Mohammed
    Aldosari, Bakheet
    [J]. MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2023, 59 (07):
  • [36] PREDICTION OF VANCOMYCIN TROUGH CONCENTRATION VIA MACHINE LEARNING IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT
    Igarashi, Yutaka
    Osawa, Shuichiro
    Nishimura, Kan
    Akaiwa, Mari
    Sato, Yoshiki
    Saito, Takuma
    Ohwada, Hayato
    Yokobori, Shoji
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (01) : 131 - 131
  • [37] Machine learning methods for optimal prediction of motor outcome in Parkinson's disease
    Salmanpour, Mohammad R.
    Shamsaei, Mojtaba
    Saberi, Abdollah
    Klyuzhin, Ivan S.
    Tang, Jing
    Sossi, Vesna
    Rahmim, Arman
    [J]. PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 69 : 233 - 240
  • [38] Optimal Feature Selection and Machine Learning for Prediction of Outcome in Parkinson's Disease
    Salmanpour, Mohammad
    Saberi, Abdollah
    Shamsaei, Mojtaba
    Rahmim, Arman
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2020, 61
  • [39] Prediction of Shock Outcome Using Signal Processing and Machine Learning
    Shandilya, Sharad
    Ji, Soo-Yeon
    Ward, Kevin
    Najarian, Kayvan
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2010, 122 (21)
  • [40] PREDICTION OF CLINICAL OUTCOME IN AORTIC STENOSIS USING MACHINE LEARNING
    Namasivayam, Mayooran
    Myers, Paul
    Guttag, John
    Picard, Michael
    Hung, Judy
    Stultz, Collin
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2020, 75 (11) : 2181 - 2181