Dataset Information

Predicting Future Care Requirements Using Machine Learning for Pediatric Intensive and Routine Care Inpatients.

ABSTRACT: Develop and compare separate prediction models for ICU and non-ICU care for hospitalized children in four future time periods (6-12, 12-18, 18-24, and 24-30 hr) and assess these models in an independent cohort and simulated children's hospital.

Design

Predictive modeling used cohorts from the Health Facts database (Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, MO).

Setting

Children hospitalized in ICUs.

Patients

Children with greater than or equal to one ICU admission (n = 20,014) and randomly selected routine care children without ICU admission (n = 20,130) from 2009 to 2016 were used for model development and validation. An independent 2017-2018 cohort consisted of 80,089 children.

Interventions

None.

Measurement and main results

Initially, we undersampled non-ICU patients for development and comparison of the models. We randomly assigned 64% of patients for training, 8% for validation, and 28% for testing in both clinical groups. Two additional validation cohorts were tested: a simulated children's hospitals and the 2017-2018 cohort. The main outcome was ICU care or non-ICU care in four future time periods based on physiology, therapy, and care intensity. Four independent, sequential, and fully connected neural networks were calibrated to risk of ICU care at each time period. Performance for all models in the test sample were comparable including sensitivity greater than or equal to 0.727, specificity greater than or equal to 0.885, accuracy greater than 0.850, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves greater than or equal to 0.917, and all had excellent calibration (all R² s > 0.98). Model performance in the 2017-2018 cohort was sensitivity greater than or equal to 0.545, specificity greater than or equal to 0.972, accuracy greater than or equal to 0.921, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves greater than or equal to 0.946, and R² s greater than or equal to 0.979. Performance metrics were comparable for the simulated children's hospital and for hospitals stratified by teaching status, bed numbers, and geographic location.

Conclusions

Machine learning models using physiology, therapy, and care intensity predicting future care needs had promising performance metrics. Notably, performance metrics were similar as the prediction time periods increased from 6-12 hours to 24-30 hours.

SUBMITTER: Trujillo Rivera EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8357255 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:RationalePatients transferred from the intensive care unit to the wards who are later readmitted to the intensive care unit have increased length of stay, healthcare expenditure, and mortality compared with those who are never readmitted. Improving risk stratification for patients transferred to the wards could have important benefits for critically ill hospitalized patients.ObjectivesWe aimed to use a machine-learning technique to derive and validate an intensive care unit readmission prediction model with variables available in the electronic health record in real time and compare it to previously published algorithms.MethodsThis observational cohort study was conducted at an academic hospital in the United States with approximately 600 inpatient beds. A total of 24,885 intensive care unit transfers to the wards were included, with 14,962 transfers (60%) in the training cohort and 9,923 transfers (40%) in the internal validation cohort. Patient characteristics, nursing assessments, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes from prior admissions, medications, intensive care unit interventions, diagnostic tests, vital signs, and laboratory results were extracted from the electronic health record and used as predictor variables in a gradient-boosted machine model. Accuracy for predicting intensive care unit readmission was compared with the Stability and Workload Index for Transfer score and Modified Early Warning Score in the internal validation cohort and also externally using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database (n = 42,303 intensive care unit transfers).ResultsEleven percent (2,834) of discharges to the wards were later readmitted to the intensive care unit. The machine-learning-derived model had significantly better performance (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.76) than either the Stability and Workload Index for Transfer score (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65), or Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.58; P value < 0.0001 for all comparisons). At a specificity of 95%, the derived model had a sensitivity of 28% compared with 15% for Stability and Workload Index for Transfer score and 7% for the Modified Early Warning Score. Accuracy improvements with the derived model over Modified Early Warning Score and Stability and Workload Index for Transfer were similar in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III cohort.ConclusionsA machine learning approach to predicting intensive care unit readmission was significantly more accurate than previously published algorithms in both our internal validation and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III cohort. Implementation of this approach could target patients who may benefit from additional time in the intensive care unit or more frequent monitoring after transfer to the hospital ward.

Project description: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 (σ = 0.008), compared to 0.846 (σ = 0.010) for a logistic regression from the same predictors and 0.836 (σ = 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 (σ = 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.

Project description:BackgroundIn the intensive care unit (ICU), continuous patient monitoring is essential to detect critical changes in patients' health statuses and to guide therapy. The implementation of digital health technologies for patient monitoring may further improve patient safety. However, most monitoring devices today are still based on technologies from the 1970s.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate statements by ICU staff on the current patient monitoring systems and their expectations for future technological developments in order to investigate clinical requirements and barriers to the implementation of future patient monitoring.MethodsThis prospective study was conducted at three intensive care units of a German university hospital. Guideline-based interviews with ICU staff-5 physicians, 6 nurses, and 4 respiratory therapists-were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the grounded theory approach.ResultsEvaluating the current monitoring system, ICU staff put high emphasis on usability factors such as intuitiveness and visualization. Trend analysis was rarely used; inadequate alarm management as well as the entanglement of monitoring cables were rated as potential patient safety issues. For a future system, the importance of high usability was again emphasized; wireless, noninvasive, and interoperable monitoring sensors were desired; mobile phones for remote patient monitoring and alarm management optimization were needed; and clinical decision support systems based on artificial intelligence were considered useful. Among perceived barriers to implementation of novel technology were lack of trust, fear of losing clinical skills, fear of increasing workload, and lack of awareness of available digital technologies.ConclusionsThis qualitative study on patient monitoring involves core statements from ICU staff. To promote a rapid and sustainable implementation of digital health solutions in the ICU, all health care stakeholders must focus more on user-derived findings. Results on alarm management or mobile devices may be used to prepare ICU staff to use novel technology, to reduce alarm fatigue, to improve medical device usability, and to advance interoperability standards in intensive care medicine. For digital transformation in health care, increasing the trust and awareness of ICU staff in digital health technology may be an essential prerequisite.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03514173; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514173 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/77T1HwOzk).

Project description:BackgroundAccurate prediction models for whether patients on the verge of a psychiatric criseis need hospitalization are lacking and machine learning methods may help improve the accuracy of psychiatric hospitalization prediction models. In this paper we evaluate the accuracy of ten machine learning algorithms, including the generalized linear model (GLM/logistic regression) to predict psychiatric hospitalization in the first 12 months after a psychiatric crisis care contact. We also evaluate an ensemble model to optimize the accuracy and we explore individual predictors of hospitalization.MethodsData from 2084 patients included in the longitudinal Amsterdam Study of Acute Psychiatry with at least one reported psychiatric crisis care contact were included. Target variable for the prediction models was whether the patient was hospitalized in the 12 months following inclusion. The predictive power of 39 variables related to patients' socio-demographics, clinical characteristics and previous mental health care contacts was evaluated. The accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the machine learning algorithms were compared and we also estimated the relative importance of each predictor variable. The best and least performing algorithms were compared with GLM/logistic regression using net reclassification improvement analysis and the five best performing algorithms were combined in an ensemble model using stacking.ResultsAll models performed above chance level. We found Gradient Boosting to be the best performing algorithm (AUC = 0.774) and K-Nearest Neighbors to be the least performing (AUC = 0.702). The performance of GLM/logistic regression (AUC = 0.76) was slightly above average among the tested algorithms. In a Net Reclassification Improvement analysis Gradient Boosting outperformed GLM/logistic regression by 2.9% and K-Nearest Neighbors by 11.3%. GLM/logistic regression outperformed K-Nearest Neighbors by 8.7%. Nine of the top-10 most important predictor variables were related to previous mental health care use.ConclusionsGradient Boosting led to the highest predictive accuracy and AUC while GLM/logistic regression performed average among the tested algorithms. Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the differences between the machine learning algorithms was in most cases modest. The results show that a predictive accuracy similar to the best performing model can be achieved when combining multiple algorithms in an ensemble model.