Dataset Information

Machine Learning Consensus Clustering Approach for Hospitalized Patients with Phosphate Derangements.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The goal of this study was to categorize patients with abnormal serum phosphate upon hospital admission into distinct clusters utilizing an unsupervised machine learning approach, and to assess the mortality risk associated with these clusters.

Methods

We utilized the consensus clustering approach on demographic information, comorbidities, principal diagnoses, and laboratory data of hypophosphatemia (serum phosphate ≤ 2.4 mg/dL) and hyperphosphatemia cohorts (serum phosphate ≥ 4.6 mg/dL). The standardized mean difference was applied to determine each cluster's key features. We assessed the association of the clusters with mortality.

Results

In the hypophosphatemia cohort (n = 3113), the consensus cluster analysis identified two clusters. The key features of patients in Cluster 2, compared with Cluster 1, included: older age; a higher comorbidity burden, particularly hypertension; diabetes mellitus; coronary artery disease; lower eGFR; and more acute kidney injury (AKI) at admission. Cluster 2 had a comparable hospital mortality (3.7% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.17), but a higher one-year mortality (26.8% vs. 14.0%; p < 0.001), and five-year mortality (20.2% vs. 44.3%; p < 0.001), compared to Cluster 1. In the hyperphosphatemia cohort (n = 7252), the analysis identified two clusters. The key features of patients in Cluster 2, compared with Cluster 1, included: older age; more primary admission for kidney disease; more history of hypertension; more end-stage kidney disease; more AKI at admission; and higher admission potassium, magnesium, and phosphate. Cluster 2 had a higher hospital (8.9% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.001) one-year mortality (32.9% vs. 14.8%; p < 0.001), and five-year mortality (24.5% vs. 51.1%; p < 0.001), compared with Cluster 1.

Conclusion

Our cluster analysis classified clinically distinct phenotypes with different mortality risks among hospitalized patients with serum phosphate derangements. Age, comorbidities, and kidney function were the key features that differentiated the phenotypes.

SUBMITTER: Thongprayoon C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8509302 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Lactic acidosis is a heterogeneous condition with multiple underlying causes and associated outcomes. The use of multi-dimensional patient data to subtype lactic acidosis can personalize patient care. Machine learning consensus clustering may identify lactic acidosis subgroups with unique clinical profiles and outcomes. We used the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database to abstract electronic medical record data from patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in a tertiary care hospital in the United States. We included patients who developed lactic acidosis (defined as serum lactate ≥ 4 mmol/L) within 48 h of ICU admission. We performed consensus clustering analysis based on patient characteristics, comorbidities, vital signs, organ supports, and laboratory data to identify clinically distinct lactic acidosis subgroups. We calculated standardized mean differences to show key subgroup features. We compared outcomes among subgroups. We identified 1919 patients with lactic acidosis. The algorithm revealed three best unique lactic acidosis subgroups based on patient variables. Cluster 1 (n = 554) was characterized by old age, elective admission to cardiac surgery ICU, vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation use, and higher pH and serum bicarbonate. Cluster 2 (n = 815) was characterized by young age, admission to trauma/surgical ICU with higher blood pressure, lower comorbidity burden, lower severity index, and less vasopressor use. Cluster 3 (n = 550) was characterized by admission to medical ICU, history of liver disease and coagulopathy, acute kidney injury, lower blood pressure, higher comorbidity burden, higher severity index, higher serum lactate, and lower pH and serum bicarbonate. Cluster 3 had the worst outcomes, while cluster 1 had the most favorable outcomes in terms of persistent lactic acidosis and mortality. Consensus clustering analysis synthesized the pattern of clinical and laboratory data to reveal clinically distinct lactic acidosis subgroups with different outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex state with many underlying causes and associated outcomes. It is still difficult to differentiate between various CS phenotypes. We investigated if the CS phenotypes with distinctive clinical profiles and prognoses might be found using the machine learning (ML) consensus clustering approach.MethodsThe current study included patients who were diagnosed with CS at the time of admission from the electronic ICU (eICU) Collaborative Research Database. Among 21,925 patients with CS, an unsupervised ML consensus clustering analysis was conducted. The optimal number of clusters was identified by means of the consensus matrix (CM) heat map, cumulative distribution function (CDF), cluster-consensus plots, and the proportion of ambiguously clustered pairs (PAC) analysis. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) of each variable and used the cutoff of ± 0.3 to identify each cluster's key features. We examined the relationship between the phenotypes and several clinical endpoints utilizing logistic regression (LR) analysis.ResultsThe consensus cluster analysis identified two clusters (Cluster 1: n = 9,848; Cluster 2: n = 12,077). The key features of patients in Cluster 1, compared with Cluster 2, included: lower blood pressure, lower eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate), higher BUN (blood urea nitrogen), higher creatinine, lower albumin, higher potassium, lower bicarbonate, lower red blood cell (RBC), higher red blood cell distribution width (RDW), higher SOFA score, higher APS III score, and higher APACHE IV score on admission. The results of LR analysis showed that the Cluster 2 was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.374; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.347-0.402; P < 0.001), ICU mortality (OR: 0.349; 95% CI: 0.318-0.382; P < 0.001), and the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) after admission (OR: 0.478; 95% CI: 0.452-0.505; P < 0.001).ConclusionsML consensus clustering analysis synthesized the pattern of clinical and laboratory data to reveal distinct CS phenotypes with different clinical outcomes.

Project description:Background: This study aimed to better characterize morbidly obese kidney transplant recipients, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes by using an unsupervised machine learning approach. Methods: Consensus cluster analysis was applied to OPTN/UNOS data from 2010 to 2019 based on recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics in kidney transplant recipients with a pre-transplant BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. Key cluster characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure, patient death, and acute allograft rejection, were compared among the clusters. Results: Consensus clustering analysis identified 3204 kidney transplant recipients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. In this cohort, five clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and non-sensitized, had a short dialysis time or were preemptive, and were more likely to receive living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 2 recipients were older and diabetic. They were likely to have been on dialysis >3 years and receive a standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Cluster 3 recipients were young, black, and had kidney disease secondary to hypertension or glomerular disease. Cluster 3 recipients had >3 years of dialysis and received non-ECD, young, deceased donor kidney transplants with a KDPI < 85%. Cluster 4 recipients were diabetic with variable dialysis duration who either received non-ECD standard KDPI kidneys or living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 5 recipients were young retransplants that were sensitized. One-year patient survival in clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 98.0%, 94.4%, 98.5%, 98.7%, and 97%, and one-year death-censored graft survival was 98.1%, 93.0%, 96.1%, 98.8%, and 93.0%, respectively. Cluster 2 had the worst one-year patient survival. Clusters 2 and 5 had the worst one-year death-censored graft survival. Conclusions: With the application of unsupervised machine learning, variable post-transplant outcomes are observed among morbidly obese kidney transplant recipients. Recipients with earlier access to transplant and living donation show superior outcomes. Unexpectedly, reduced graft survival in cluster 3 recipients perhaps underscores socioeconomic access to post-transplant support and minorities being disadvantaged in access to preemptive and living donor transplants. Despite obesity-related concerns, one-year patient and graft survival were favorable in all clusters, and obesity itself should be reconsidered as a hard barrier to kidney transplantation.

Project description:Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients with pre-transplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) ≥ 98% using an unsupervised machine learning approach as clinical outcomes for this population are inferior, despite receiving increased allocation priority. Identifying subgroups with higher risks for inferior outcomes is essential to guide individualized management strategies for these vulnerable recipients. Materials and Methods: To achieve this, we analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2010 to 2019 and performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7458 kidney transplant patients with pre-transplant PRA ≥ 98%. The key characteristics of each cluster were identified by calculating the standardized mean difference. The post-transplant outcomes were compared between the assigned clusters. Results: We identified two distinct clusters and compared the post-transplant outcomes among the assigned clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Cluster 1 patients were younger (median age 45 years), male predominant, and more likely to have previously undergone a kidney transplant, but had less diabetic kidney disease. Cluster 2 recipients were older (median 54 years), female predominant, and more likely to be undergoing a first-time transplant. While patient survival was comparable between the two clusters, cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and higher acute rejection compared to cluster 2. Conclusions: The unsupervised machine learning approach categorized very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients into two clinically distinct clusters with differing post-transplant outcomes. A better understanding of these clinically distinct subgroups may assist the transplant community in developing individualized care strategies and improving the outcomes for very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients.