Cargando…

Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sikora, Andrea, Zhang, Tianyi, Murphy, David J., Smith, Susan E., Murray, Brian, Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan, Chen, Xianyan, Buckley, Mitchell S., Rowe, Sandra, Devlin, John W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10638304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37949982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46735-3
_version_ 1785133571703308288
author Sikora, Andrea
Zhang, Tianyi
Murphy, David J.
Smith, Susan E.
Murray, Brian
Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan
Chen, Xianyan
Buckley, Mitchell S.
Rowe, Sandra
Devlin, John W.
author_facet Sikora, Andrea
Zhang, Tianyi
Murphy, David J.
Smith, Susan E.
Murray, Brian
Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan
Chen, Xianyan
Buckley, Mitchell S.
Rowe, Sandra
Devlin, John W.
author_sort Sikora, Andrea
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10638304
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106383042023-11-11 Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU Sikora, Andrea Zhang, Tianyi Murphy, David J. Smith, Susan E. Murray, Brian Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan Chen, Xianyan Buckley, Mitchell S. Rowe, Sandra Devlin, John W. Sci Rep Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10638304/ /pubmed/37949982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46735-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Sikora, Andrea
Zhang, Tianyi
Murphy, David J.
Smith, Susan E.
Murray, Brian
Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan
Chen, Xianyan
Buckley, Mitchell S.
Rowe, Sandra
Devlin, John W.
Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU
title Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU
title_full Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU
title_fullStr Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU
title_full_unstemmed Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU
title_short Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU
title_sort machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the icu
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10638304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37949982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46735-3
work_keys_str_mv AT sikoraandrea machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT zhangtianyi machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT murphydavidj machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT smithsusane machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT murraybrian machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT kamaleswaranrishikesan machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT chenxianyan machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT buckleymitchells machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT rowesandra machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu
AT devlinjohnw machinelearningvstraditionalregressionanalysisforfluidoverloadpredictionintheicu