Comparing Clinician Estimates versus a Statistical Tool for Predicting Risk of Death within 45 Days of Admission for Cancer Patients.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-26 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1787185
Adrianna Z Herskovits, Tiffanny Newman, Kevin Nicholas, Cesar F Colorado-Jimenez, Claire E Perry, Alisa Valentino, Isaac Wagner, Barbara Egan, Dmitriy Gorenshteyn, Andrew J Vickers, Melissa S Pessin
{"title":"Comparing Clinician Estimates versus a Statistical Tool for Predicting Risk of Death within 45 Days of Admission for Cancer Patients.","authors":"Adrianna Z Herskovits, Tiffanny Newman, Kevin Nicholas, Cesar F Colorado-Jimenez, Claire E Perry, Alisa Valentino, Isaac Wagner, Barbara Egan, Dmitriy Gorenshteyn, Andrew J Vickers, Melissa S Pessin","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1787185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong> While clinical practice guidelines recommend that oncologists discuss goals of care with patients who have advanced cancer, it is estimated that less than 20% of individuals admitted to the hospital with high-risk cancers have end-of-life discussions with their providers. While there has been interest in developing models for mortality prediction to trigger such discussions, few studies have compared how such models compare with clinical judgment to determine a patient's mortality risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> This study is a prospective analysis of 1,069 solid tumor medical oncology hospital admissions (<i>n</i> = 911 unique patients) from February 7 to June 7, 2022, at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Electronic surveys were sent to hospitalists, advanced practice providers, and medical oncologists the first afternoon following a hospital admission and they were asked to estimate the probability that the patient would die within 45 days. Provider estimates of mortality were compared with those from a predictive model developed using a supervised machine learning methodology, and incorporated routine laboratory, demographic, biometric, and admission data. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration and decision curves were compared between clinician estimates and the model predictions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Within 45 days following hospital admission, 229 (25%) of 911 patients died. The model performed better than the clinician estimates (AUC 0.834 vs. 0.753, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Integrating clinician predictions with the model's estimates further increased the AUC to 0.853 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). Clinicians overestimated risk whereas the model was extremely well-calibrated. The model demonstrated net benefit over a wide range of threshold probabilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> The inpatient prognosis at admission model is a robust tool to assist clinical providers in evaluating mortality risk, and it has recently been implemented in the electronic medical record at our institution to improve end-of-life care planning for hospitalized cancer patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11208110/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1787185","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives:  While clinical practice guidelines recommend that oncologists discuss goals of care with patients who have advanced cancer, it is estimated that less than 20% of individuals admitted to the hospital with high-risk cancers have end-of-life discussions with their providers. While there has been interest in developing models for mortality prediction to trigger such discussions, few studies have compared how such models compare with clinical judgment to determine a patient's mortality risk.

Methods:  This study is a prospective analysis of 1,069 solid tumor medical oncology hospital admissions (n = 911 unique patients) from February 7 to June 7, 2022, at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Electronic surveys were sent to hospitalists, advanced practice providers, and medical oncologists the first afternoon following a hospital admission and they were asked to estimate the probability that the patient would die within 45 days. Provider estimates of mortality were compared with those from a predictive model developed using a supervised machine learning methodology, and incorporated routine laboratory, demographic, biometric, and admission data. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration and decision curves were compared between clinician estimates and the model predictions.

Results:  Within 45 days following hospital admission, 229 (25%) of 911 patients died. The model performed better than the clinician estimates (AUC 0.834 vs. 0.753, p < 0.0001). Integrating clinician predictions with the model's estimates further increased the AUC to 0.853 (p < 0.0001). Clinicians overestimated risk whereas the model was extremely well-calibrated. The model demonstrated net benefit over a wide range of threshold probabilities.

Conclusion:  The inpatient prognosis at admission model is a robust tool to assist clinical providers in evaluating mortality risk, and it has recently been implemented in the electronic medical record at our institution to improve end-of-life care planning for hospitalized cancer patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在预测癌症患者入院 45 天内的死亡风险方面,比较临床医生的估计和统计工具。
目的:虽然临床实践指南建议肿瘤学家与晚期癌症患者讨论治疗目标,但据估计,在入院的高危癌症患者中,只有不到 20% 的患者与医护人员讨论过生命末期的问题。虽然人们对开发死亡率预测模型以引发此类讨论很感兴趣,但很少有研究将此类模型与临床判断患者死亡风险的方法进行比较:本研究是对斯隆-凯特琳纪念癌症中心 2022 年 2 月 7 日至 6 月 7 日收治的 1069 名实体瘤肿瘤内科住院患者(n = 911 名患者)进行的前瞻性分析。我们在患者入院后的第一个下午向住院医生、高级医疗服务提供者和肿瘤内科医生发送了电子调查问卷,要求他们估计患者在45天内死亡的概率。医疗服务提供者对死亡率的估计值与采用监督机器学习方法开发的预测模型所得出的估计值进行了比较,该预测模型结合了常规实验室、人口统计学、生物统计学和入院数据。比较了临床医生估计值与模型预测值之间的接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、校准和决策曲线:入院后 45 天内,911 名患者中有 229 人(25%)死亡。该模型的表现优于临床医生的估计值(AUC 0.834 vs. 0.753, p p 结论:入院时的住院病人预后比临床医生的估计值要好:住院病人入院时的预后模型是协助临床医疗人员评估死亡风险的有力工具,本机构最近在电子病历中采用了该模型,以改善住院癌症病人的临终关怀计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
期刊最新文献
Taking a Team Approach: Keep up with the EHR with a Training and Optimization Program. Interventions to mitigate EHR and documentation burden in health professions trainees: A scoping review. A human-centered approach for designing a social care referral platform. Ethical dimensions of clinical data sharing by US healthcare organizations for purposes beyond direct patient care: Interviews with healthcare leaders. Special Issue on Informatics Education A Longitudinal Graduate Medical Education Curriculum in Clinical Informatics: Function, Structure, and Evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1