Dataset Information

Machine Learning Approaches to Predict 6-Month Mortality Among Patients With Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Machine learning algorithms could identify patients with cancer who are at risk of short-term mortality. However, it is unclear how different machine learning algorithms compare and whether they could prompt clinicians to have timely conversations about treatment and end-of-life preferences. Objectives:To develop, validate, and compare machine learning algorithms that use structured electronic health record data before a clinic visit to predict mortality among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants:Cohort study of 26 525 adult patients who had outpatient oncology or hematology/oncology encounters at a large academic cancer center and 10 affiliated community practices between February 1, 2016, and July 1, 2016. Patients were not required to receive cancer-directed treatment. Patients were observed for up to 500 days after the encounter. Data analysis took place between October 1, 2018, and September 1, 2019. Exposures:Logistic regression, gradient boosting, and random forest algorithms. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcome was 180-day mortality from the index encounter; secondary outcome was 500-day mortality from the index encounter. Results:Among 26 525 patients in the analysis, 1065 (4.0%) died within 180 days of the index encounter. Among those who died, the mean age was 67.3 (95% CI, 66.5-68.0) years, and 500 (47.0%) were women. Among those who were alive at 180 days, the mean age was 61.3 (95% CI, 61.1-61.5) years, and 15 922 (62.5%) were women. The population was randomly partitioned into training (18 567 [70.0%]) and validation (7958 [30.0%]) cohorts at the patient level, and a randomly selected encounter was included in either the training or validation set. At a prespecified alert rate of 0.02, positive predictive values were higher for the random forest (51.3%) and gradient boosting (49.4%) algorithms compared with the logistic regression algorithm (44.7%). There was no significant difference in discrimination among the random forest (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.89), gradient boosting (AUC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.89), and logistic regression (AUC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.88) models (P for comparison = .02). In the random forest model, observed 180-day mortality was 51.3% (95% CI, 43.6%-58.8%) in the high-risk group vs 3.4% (95% CI, 3.0%-3.8%) in the low-risk group; at 500 days, observed mortality was 64.4% (95% CI, 56.7%-71.4%) in the high-risk group and 7.6% (7.0%-8.2%) in the low-risk group. In a survey of 15 oncology clinicians with a 52.1% response rate, 100 of 171 patients (58.8%) who had been flagged as having high risk by the gradient boosting algorithm were deemed appropriate for a conversation about treatment and end-of-life preferences in the upcoming week. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cohort study, machine learning algorithms based on structured electronic health record data accurately identified patients with cancer at risk of short-term mortality. When the gradient boosting algorithm was applied in real time, clinicians believed that most patients who had been identified as having high risk were appropriate for a timely conversation about treatment and end-of-life preferences.

SUBMITTER: Parikh RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6822091 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with cancer frequently experience severe and distressing symptoms associated with cancer and its treatments. Predicting symptoms in patients with cancer continues to be a significant challenge for both clinicians and researchers. The rapid evolution of machine learning (ML) highlights the need for a current systematic review to improve cancer symptom prediction.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to synthesize the literature that has used ML algorithms to predict the development of cancer symptoms and to identify the predictors of these symptoms. This is essential for integrating new developments and identifying gaps in existing literature.MethodsWe conducted this systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. We conducted a systematic search of CINAHL, Embase, and PubMed for English records published from 1984 to August 11, 2023, using the following search terms: cancer, neoplasm, specific symptoms, neural networks, machine learning, specific algorithm names, and deep learning. All records that met the eligibility criteria were individually reviewed by 2 coauthors, and key findings were extracted and synthesized. We focused on studies using ML algorithms to predict cancer symptoms, excluding nonhuman research, technical reports, reviews, book chapters, conference proceedings, and inaccessible full texts.ResultsA total of 42 studies were included, the majority of which were published after 2017. Most studies were conducted in North America (18/42, 43%) and Asia (16/42, 38%). The sample sizes in most studies (27/42, 64%) typically ranged from 100 to 1000 participants. The most prevalent category of algorithms was supervised ML, accounting for 39 (93%) of the 42 studies. Each of the methods-deep learning, ensemble classifiers, and unsupervised ML-constituted 3 (3%) of the 42 studies. The ML algorithms with the best performance were logistic regression (9/42, 17%), random forest (7/42, 13%), artificial neural networks (5/42, 9%), and decision trees (5/42, 9%). The most commonly included primary cancer sites were the head and neck (9/42, 22%) and breast (8/42, 19%), with 17 (41%) of the 42 studies not specifying the site. The most frequently studied symptoms were xerostomia (9/42, 14%), depression (8/42, 13%), pain (8/42, 13%), and fatigue (6/42, 10%). The significant predictors were age, gender, treatment type, treatment number, cancer site, cancer stage, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, chronic diseases, comorbidities, physical factors, and psychological factors.ConclusionsThis review outlines the algorithms used for predicting symptoms in individuals with cancer. Given the diversity of symptoms people with cancer experience, analytic approaches that can handle complex and nonlinear relationships are critical. This knowledge can pave the way for crafting algorithms tailored to a specific symptom. In addition, to improve prediction precision, future research should compare cutting-edge ML strategies such as deep learning and ensemble methods with traditional statistical models.

Project description:ImportanceTo date, oncologist and model prognostic performance have been assessed independently and mostly retrospectively; however, how model prognostic performance compares with oncologist prognostic performance prospectively remains unknown.ObjectiveTo compare oncologist performance with a model in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with metastatic solid tumors in an outpatient setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis prognostic study evaluated prospective predictions for a cohort of patients with metastatic solid tumors seen in outpatient oncology clinics at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and associated satellites between December 6, 2019, and August 6, 2021. Oncologists (57 physicians and 17 advanced practice clinicians) answered a 3-month surprise question (3MSQ) within clinical pathways. A model was trained with electronic health record data from January 1, 2013, to April 24, 2019, to identify patients at high risk of 3-month mortality and deployed silently in October 2019. Analysis was limited to oncologist prognostications with a model prediction within the preceding 30 days.ExposuresThree-month surprise question and gradient-boosting binary classifier.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was performance comparison between oncologists and the model to predict 3-month mortality. The primary performance metric was the positive predictive value (PPV) at the sensitivity achieved by the medical oncologists with their 3MSQ answers.ResultsA total of 74 oncologists answered 3099 3MSQs for 2041 patients with advanced cancer (median age, 62.6 [range, 18-96] years; 1271 women [62.3%]). In this cohort with a 15% prevalence of 3-month mortality and 30% sensitivity for both oncologists and the model, the PPV of oncologists was 34.8% (95% CI, 30.1%-39.5%) and the PPV of the model was 60.0% (95% CI, 53.6%-66.3%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model was 81.2% (95% CI, 79.1%-83.3%). The model significantly outperformed the oncologists in short-term mortality.Conclusions and relevanceIn this prognostic study, the model outperformed oncologists overall and within the breast and gastrointestinal cancer cohorts in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with advanced cancer. These findings suggest that further studies may be useful to examine how model predictions could improve oncologists' prognostic confidence and patient-centered goal-concordant care at the end of life.

Project description:Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) can successfully predict high prevalence events in very large databases (big data), but the value of this methodology for risk prediction in smaller cohorts with uncommon diseases and infrequent events is uncertain. The clinical course of spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is variable, and no reliable methods are available to predict mortality. Based on the hypothesis that machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques could enhance the identification of patients at risk, we applied a deep neural network to information available in electronic health records (EHR) to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with SCAD. We extracted patient data from the EHR of an extensive urban health system and applied several ML and DL models using candidate clinical variables potentially associated with mortality. We partitioned the data into training and evaluation sets with cross-validation. We estimated model performance based on the area under the receiver-operator characteristics curve (AUC) and balanced accuracy. As sensitivity analyses, we examined results limited to cases with complete clinical information available. We identified 375 SCAD patients of which mortality during the index hospitalization was 11.5%. The best-performing DL algorithm identified in-hospital mortality with AUC 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), compared to other ML models (P < 0.0001). For prediction of mortality using ML models in patients with SCAD, the AUC ranged from 0.50 with the random forest method (95% CI 0.41-0.58) to 0.95 with the AdaBoost model (95% CI 0.93-0.96), with intermediate performance using logistic regression, decision tree, support vector machine, K-nearest neighbors, and extreme gradient boosting methods. A deep neural network model was associated with higher predictive accuracy and discriminative power than logistic regression or ML models for identification of patients with ACS due to SCAD prone to early mortality.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Up to now, there are no well-established longitudinal networks from molecular mechanisms to clinical phenotypes in sepsis. Adding to the problem, about one of the five patients presented with diabetes. For this subgroup, management is difficult, and prognosis is difficult to evaluate.MethodsFrom the three databases, a total of 7,001 patients were enrolled on the basis of sepsis-3 standard and diabetes diagnosis. Input variable selection is based on the result of correlation analysis in a handpicking way, and 53 variables were left. A total of 5,727 records were collected from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database and randomly split into a training set and an internal validation set at a ratio of 7:3. Then, logistic regression with lasso regularization, Bayes logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and XGBoost were conducted to build the predictive model by using training set. Then, the models were tested by the internal validation set. The data from eICU Collaborative Research Database (n = 815) and dtChina critical care database (n = 459) were used to test the model performance as the external validation set.ResultsIn the internal validation set, the accuracy values of logistic regression with lasso regularization, Bayes logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and XGBoost were 0.878, 0.883, 0.865, 0.883, and 0.882, respectively. Likewise, in the external validation set 1, lasso regularization = 0.879, Bayes logistic regression = 0.877, decision tree = 0.865, random forest = 0.886, and XGBoost = 0.875. In the external validation set 2, lasso regularization = 0.715, Bayes logistic regression = 0.745, decision tree = 0.763, random forest = 0.760, and XGBoost = 0.699.ConclusionThe top three models for internal validation set were Bayes logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost, whereas the top three models for external validation set 1 were random forest, logistic regression, and Bayes logistic regression. In addition, the top three models for the external validation set 2 were decision tree, random forest, and Bayes logistic regression. Random forest model performed well with the training and three validation sets. The most important features are age, albumin, and lactate.

Project description:BackgroundWhile multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are available, their results may not be generalizable to older, unhealthier or less-adherent patients. Observational data can be used to predict outcomes and evaluate treatments; however, exactly which strategy should be used to analyze the outcomes of treatment using observational data is currently unclear. This study aimed to determine the most accurate machine learning technique to predict 1-year-after-initial-acute-myocardial-infarction (AMI) survival of elderly patients and to identify the association of angiotensin-converting- enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs) with survival.MethodsWe built a cohort of 124,031 Medicare beneficiaries who experienced an AMI in 2007 or 2008. For analytical purposes, all variables were categorized into nine different groups: ACEi/ARB use, demographics, cardiac events, comorbidities, complications, procedures, medications, insurance, and healthcare utilization. Our outcome of interest was 1-year-post-AMI survival. To solve this classification task, we used lasso logistic regression (LLR) and random forest (RF), and compared their performance depending on category selection, sampling methods, and hyper-parameter selection. Nested 10-fold cross-validation was implemented to obtain an unbiased estimate of performance evaluation. We used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) as our primary measure for evaluating the performance of predictive algorithms.ResultsLLR consistently showed best AUC results throughout the experiments, closely followed by RF. The best prediction was yielded with LLR based on the combination of demographics, comorbidities, procedures, and utilization. The coefficients from the final LLR model showed that AMI patients with many comorbidities, older ages, or living in a low-income area have a higher risk of mortality 1-year after an AMI. In addition, treating the AMI patients with ACEi/ARBs increases the 1-year-after-initial-AMI survival rate of the patients.ConclusionsGiven the many features we examined, ACEi/ARBs were associated with increased 1-year survival among elderly patients after an AMI. We found LLR to be the best-performing model over RF to predict 1-year survival after an AMI. LLR greatly improved the generalization of the model by feature selection, which implicitly indicates the association between AMI-related variables and survival can be defined by a relatively simple model with a small number of features. Some comorbidities were associated with a greater risk of mortality, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease, but others were associated with survival such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. In addition, patients who live in urban areas and areas with large numbers of immigrants have a higher probability of survival. Machine learning methods are helpful to determine outcomes when RCT results are not available.

Dataset Information

Machine Learning Approaches to Predict 6-Month Mortality Among Patients With Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets