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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |