Estimating individual risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infections using explainable artificial intelligence on clinical data.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES American journal of infection control Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2024.10.027
Herdiantri Sufriyana, Chieh Chen, Hua-Sheng Chiu, Pavel Sumazin, Po-Yu Yang, Jiunn-Horng Kang, Emily Chia-Yu Su
{"title":"Estimating individual risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infections using explainable artificial intelligence on clinical data.","authors":"Herdiantri Sufriyana, Chieh Chen, Hua-Sheng Chiu, Pavel Sumazin, Po-Yu Yang, Jiunn-Horng Kang, Emily Chia-Yu Su","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2024.10.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) increase clinical burdens. Identifying the high-risk patients is crucial. We aimed to develop and externally validate an explainable, prognostic prediction model of CAUTIs among hospitalized individuals receiving urinary catheterization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort paradigm was applied for model development and validation using data from 2 hospitals and used the third hospital's data for external validation. Machine learning algorithms were applied for predictive modeling. We evaluated the calibration, clinical utility, and discrimination ability to choose the best model by the validation set. The best model was assessed for the explainability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 122,417 instances from 20-to-75-year-old subjects. Fourteen predictors were selected from 20 candidates. The best model was the random forest for prediction within 6days. It detected 97.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: ± 0.06%) CAUTI positive, and 97.36% (95% CI: ± 0.07%) of individuals that were predicted to be CAUTI negative were true negatives. Among those predicted to be CAUTI positives, we expected 22.85% (95% CI: ± 0.07%) of them to truly be high-risk individuals. We provide a web-based application and a paper-based nomogram for using this model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our prediction model accurately detected most CAUTI-positive cases, while most predicted negative individuals were correctly ruled out.</p>","PeriodicalId":7621,"journal":{"name":"American journal of infection control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of infection control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2024.10.027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) increase clinical burdens. Identifying the high-risk patients is crucial. We aimed to develop and externally validate an explainable, prognostic prediction model of CAUTIs among hospitalized individuals receiving urinary catheterization.

Methods: A retrospective cohort paradigm was applied for model development and validation using data from 2 hospitals and used the third hospital's data for external validation. Machine learning algorithms were applied for predictive modeling. We evaluated the calibration, clinical utility, and discrimination ability to choose the best model by the validation set. The best model was assessed for the explainability.

Results: We included 122,417 instances from 20-to-75-year-old subjects. Fourteen predictors were selected from 20 candidates. The best model was the random forest for prediction within 6days. It detected 97.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: ± 0.06%) CAUTI positive, and 97.36% (95% CI: ± 0.07%) of individuals that were predicted to be CAUTI negative were true negatives. Among those predicted to be CAUTI positives, we expected 22.85% (95% CI: ± 0.07%) of them to truly be high-risk individuals. We provide a web-based application and a paper-based nomogram for using this model.

Conclusions: Our prediction model accurately detected most CAUTI-positive cases, while most predicted negative individuals were correctly ruled out.

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
在临床数据上使用可解释人工智能估算导尿管相关尿路感染的个人风险。
背景:导尿管相关性尿路感染(CAUTI)增加了临床负担。识别高危患者至关重要。我们的目的是在接受导尿术的住院病人中建立一个可解释的 CAUTI 预后预测模型,并对其进行外部验证:方法:采用回顾性队列范式,利用两家医院的数据进行模型开发和验证,并利用第三家医院的数据进行外部验证。预测建模采用了机器学习算法。我们通过验证集评估了校准、临床实用性和判别能力,以选择最佳模型。我们还对最佳模型的可解释性进行了评估:我们从 20 至 75 岁的受试者中选取了 122,417 个实例。从 20 个候选预测因子中选出了 14 个。最佳模型是 6 天内预测的 RF 模型。它能检测出 97.63%(95% 置信区间 [CI]:±0.06%)的 CAUTI 阳性患者,而 97.36%(95% 置信区间:±0.07%)被预测为 CAUTI 阴性的患者是真正的阴性患者。在预测为 CAUTI 阳性的患者中,我们预计有 22.85%(95% CI:±0.07%)的患者确实是高危人群。我们提供了使用该模型的网络应用程序和纸质提名图:我们的预测模型准确检测出了大多数 CAUTI 阳性病例,同时正确排除了大多数预测阴性病例。
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
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.10%
发文量
479
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: AJIC covers key topics and issues in infection control and epidemiology. Infection control professionals, including physicians, nurses, and epidemiologists, rely on AJIC for peer-reviewed articles covering clinical topics as well as original research. As the official publication of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)
期刊最新文献
Indicator-based tuberculosis infection control assessments with knowledge, attitudes, and practices evaluations among health facilities in China, 2017-2019. Evaluation of a far ultraviolet-C device for decontamination of portable equipment in clinical areas. Predictors for non-compliant intra-vascular catheter insertion site dressings at a large academic center. Bacterial air contamination and the protective effect of coverage for sterile surgical goods: A randomized controlled trial. Survey said! LTC-CIP® Certificant's Perspective with Passing the Certification Exam.
×
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