Cargando…

Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Although machine learning-based prediction models for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) have been widely investigated, it is unknown whether a model based on vital signs alone (Vitals-Only model) can perform similarly to a model that considers both vital signs and laboratory results (Vit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ueno, Ryo, Xu, Liyuan, Uegami, Wataru, Matsui, Hiroki, Okui, Jun, Hayashi, Hiroshi, Miyajima, Toru, Hayashi, Yoshiro, Pilcher, David, Jones, Daryl
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32658901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235835
_version_ 1783558732175638528
author Ueno, Ryo
Xu, Liyuan
Uegami, Wataru
Matsui, Hiroki
Okui, Jun
Hayashi, Hiroshi
Miyajima, Toru
Hayashi, Yoshiro
Pilcher, David
Jones, Daryl
author_facet Ueno, Ryo
Xu, Liyuan
Uegami, Wataru
Matsui, Hiroki
Okui, Jun
Hayashi, Hiroshi
Miyajima, Toru
Hayashi, Yoshiro
Pilcher, David
Jones, Daryl
author_sort Ueno, Ryo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although machine learning-based prediction models for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) have been widely investigated, it is unknown whether a model based on vital signs alone (Vitals-Only model) can perform similarly to a model that considers both vital signs and laboratory results (Vitals+Labs model). METHODS: All adult patients hospitalized in a tertiary care hospital in Japan between October 2011 and October 2018 were included in this study. Random forest models with/without laboratory results (Vitals+Labs model and Vitals-Only model, respectively) were trained and tested using chronologically divided datasets. Both models use patient demographics and eight-hourly vital signs collected within the previous 48 hours. The primary and secondary outcomes were the occurrence of IHCA in the next 8 and 24 hours, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used as a comparative measure. Sensitivity analyses were performed under multiple statistical assumptions. RESULTS: Of 141,111 admitted patients (training data: 83,064, test data: 58,047), 338 had an IHCA (training data: 217, test data: 121) during the study period. The Vitals-Only model and Vitals+Labs model performed comparably when predicting IHCA within the next 8 hours (Vitals-Only model vs Vitals+Labs model, AUC = 0.862 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.855–0.868] vs 0.872 [95% CI: 0.867–0.878]) and 24 hours (Vitals-Only model vs Vitals+Labs model, AUC = 0.830 [95% CI: 0.825–0.835] vs 0.837 [95% CI: 0.830–0.844]). Both models performed similarly well on medical, surgical, and ward patient data, but did not perform well for intensive care unit patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study, the machine learning model predicted IHCAs with good discrimination. The addition of laboratory values to vital signs did not significantly improve its overall performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7357766
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73577662020-07-22 Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A single-center retrospective cohort study Ueno, Ryo Xu, Liyuan Uegami, Wataru Matsui, Hiroki Okui, Jun Hayashi, Hiroshi Miyajima, Toru Hayashi, Yoshiro Pilcher, David Jones, Daryl PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Although machine learning-based prediction models for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) have been widely investigated, it is unknown whether a model based on vital signs alone (Vitals-Only model) can perform similarly to a model that considers both vital signs and laboratory results (Vitals+Labs model). METHODS: All adult patients hospitalized in a tertiary care hospital in Japan between October 2011 and October 2018 were included in this study. Random forest models with/without laboratory results (Vitals+Labs model and Vitals-Only model, respectively) were trained and tested using chronologically divided datasets. Both models use patient demographics and eight-hourly vital signs collected within the previous 48 hours. The primary and secondary outcomes were the occurrence of IHCA in the next 8 and 24 hours, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used as a comparative measure. Sensitivity analyses were performed under multiple statistical assumptions. RESULTS: Of 141,111 admitted patients (training data: 83,064, test data: 58,047), 338 had an IHCA (training data: 217, test data: 121) during the study period. The Vitals-Only model and Vitals+Labs model performed comparably when predicting IHCA within the next 8 hours (Vitals-Only model vs Vitals+Labs model, AUC = 0.862 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.855–0.868] vs 0.872 [95% CI: 0.867–0.878]) and 24 hours (Vitals-Only model vs Vitals+Labs model, AUC = 0.830 [95% CI: 0.825–0.835] vs 0.837 [95% CI: 0.830–0.844]). Both models performed similarly well on medical, surgical, and ward patient data, but did not perform well for intensive care unit patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study, the machine learning model predicted IHCAs with good discrimination. The addition of laboratory values to vital signs did not significantly improve its overall performance. Public Library of Science 2020-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7357766/ /pubmed/32658901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235835 Text en © 2020 Ueno et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ueno, Ryo
Xu, Liyuan
Uegami, Wataru
Matsui, Hiroki
Okui, Jun
Hayashi, Hiroshi
Miyajima, Toru
Hayashi, Yoshiro
Pilcher, David
Jones, Daryl
Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A single-center retrospective cohort study
title Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A single-center retrospective cohort study
title_full Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A single-center retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A single-center retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A single-center retrospective cohort study
title_short Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A single-center retrospective cohort study
title_sort value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: a single-center retrospective cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32658901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235835
work_keys_str_mv AT uenoryo valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT xuliyuan valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT uegamiwataru valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT matsuihiroki valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT okuijun valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT hayashihiroshi valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT miyajimatoru valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT hayashiyoshiro valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT pilcherdavid valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy
AT jonesdaryl valueoflaboratoryresultsinadditiontovitalsignsinamachinelearningalgorithmtopredictinhospitalcardiacarrestasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy