Cargando…

Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare machine learning methods for predicting inpatient seizures risk and determine the feasibility of 1‐h screening EEG to identify low‐risk patients (<5% seizures risk in 48 h). METHODS: The Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium (CCEMRC) multicenter database contains...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Struck, Aaron F., Rodriguez‐Ruiz, Andres A., Osman, Gamaledin, Gilmore, Emily J., Haider, Hiba A., Dhakar, Monica B., Schrettner, Matthew, Lee, Jong W., Gaspard, Nicolas, Hirsch, Lawrence J., Westover, M. Brandon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6649418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31353866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.50817
_version_ 1783438030200111104
author Struck, Aaron F.
Rodriguez‐Ruiz, Andres A.
Osman, Gamaledin
Gilmore, Emily J.
Haider, Hiba A.
Dhakar, Monica B.
Schrettner, Matthew
Lee, Jong W.
Gaspard, Nicolas
Hirsch, Lawrence J.
Westover, M. Brandon
author_facet Struck, Aaron F.
Rodriguez‐Ruiz, Andres A.
Osman, Gamaledin
Gilmore, Emily J.
Haider, Hiba A.
Dhakar, Monica B.
Schrettner, Matthew
Lee, Jong W.
Gaspard, Nicolas
Hirsch, Lawrence J.
Westover, M. Brandon
author_sort Struck, Aaron F.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare machine learning methods for predicting inpatient seizures risk and determine the feasibility of 1‐h screening EEG to identify low‐risk patients (<5% seizures risk in 48 h). METHODS: The Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium (CCEMRC) multicenter database contains 7716 continuous EEGs (cEEG). Neural networks (NN), elastic net logistic regression (EN), and sparse linear integer model (RiskSLIM) were trained to predict seizures. RiskSLIM was used previously to generate 2HELPS2B model of seizure predictions. Data were divided into training (60% for model fitting) and evaluation (40% for model evaluation) cohorts. Performance was measured using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), mean risk calibration (CAL), and negative predictive value (NPV). A secondary analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) to normalize all EEG recordings to 48 h and use only the first hour of EEG as a “screening EEG” to generate predictions. RESULTS: RiskSLIM recreated the 2HELPS2B model. All models had comparable AUC: evaluation cohort (NN: 0.85, EN: 0.84, 2HELPS2B: 0.83) and MCS (NN: 0.82, EN; 0.82, 2HELPS2B: 0.81) and NPV (absence of seizures in the group that the models predicted to be low risk): evaluation cohort (NN: 97%, EN: 97%, 2HELPS2B: 97%) and MCS (NN: 97%, EN: 99%, 2HELPS2B: 97%). 2HELPS2B model was able to identify the largest proportion of low‐risk patients. INTERPRETATION: For seizure risk stratification of hospitalized patients, the RiskSLIM generated 2HELPS2B model compares favorably to the complex NN and EN generated models. 2HELPS2B is able to accurately and quickly identify low‐risk patients with only a 1‐h screening EEG.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6649418
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66494182019-07-31 Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients Struck, Aaron F. Rodriguez‐Ruiz, Andres A. Osman, Gamaledin Gilmore, Emily J. Haider, Hiba A. Dhakar, Monica B. Schrettner, Matthew Lee, Jong W. Gaspard, Nicolas Hirsch, Lawrence J. Westover, M. Brandon Ann Clin Transl Neurol Research Articles OBJECTIVE: To compare machine learning methods for predicting inpatient seizures risk and determine the feasibility of 1‐h screening EEG to identify low‐risk patients (<5% seizures risk in 48 h). METHODS: The Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium (CCEMRC) multicenter database contains 7716 continuous EEGs (cEEG). Neural networks (NN), elastic net logistic regression (EN), and sparse linear integer model (RiskSLIM) were trained to predict seizures. RiskSLIM was used previously to generate 2HELPS2B model of seizure predictions. Data were divided into training (60% for model fitting) and evaluation (40% for model evaluation) cohorts. Performance was measured using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), mean risk calibration (CAL), and negative predictive value (NPV). A secondary analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) to normalize all EEG recordings to 48 h and use only the first hour of EEG as a “screening EEG” to generate predictions. RESULTS: RiskSLIM recreated the 2HELPS2B model. All models had comparable AUC: evaluation cohort (NN: 0.85, EN: 0.84, 2HELPS2B: 0.83) and MCS (NN: 0.82, EN; 0.82, 2HELPS2B: 0.81) and NPV (absence of seizures in the group that the models predicted to be low risk): evaluation cohort (NN: 97%, EN: 97%, 2HELPS2B: 97%) and MCS (NN: 97%, EN: 99%, 2HELPS2B: 97%). 2HELPS2B model was able to identify the largest proportion of low‐risk patients. INTERPRETATION: For seizure risk stratification of hospitalized patients, the RiskSLIM generated 2HELPS2B model compares favorably to the complex NN and EN generated models. 2HELPS2B is able to accurately and quickly identify low‐risk patients with only a 1‐h screening EEG. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6649418/ /pubmed/31353866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.50817 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc on behalf of American Neurological Association. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Struck, Aaron F.
Rodriguez‐Ruiz, Andres A.
Osman, Gamaledin
Gilmore, Emily J.
Haider, Hiba A.
Dhakar, Monica B.
Schrettner, Matthew
Lee, Jong W.
Gaspard, Nicolas
Hirsch, Lawrence J.
Westover, M. Brandon
Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients
title Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients
title_full Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients
title_fullStr Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients
title_short Comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients
title_sort comparison of machine learning models for seizure prediction in hospitalized patients
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6649418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31353866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.50817
work_keys_str_mv AT struckaaronf comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT rodriguezruizandresa comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT osmangamaledin comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT gilmoreemilyj comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT haiderhibaa comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT dhakarmonicab comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT schrettnermatthew comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT leejongw comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT gaspardnicolas comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT hirschlawrencej comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT westovermbrandon comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients
AT comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforseizurepredictioninhospitalizedpatients