Exploring timely and safe discharge from ICU: a comparative study of machine learning predictions and clinical practices.

IF 2.8 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Intensive Care Medicine Experimental Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1186/s40635-025-00717-z
Chao Ping Wu, Rachel Benish Shirley, Alex Milinovich, Kaiyin Liu, Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila, Hassan Khouli, Abhijit Duggal, Anirban Bhattacharyya
{"title":"Exploring timely and safe discharge from ICU: a comparative study of machine learning predictions and clinical practices.","authors":"Chao Ping Wu, Rachel Benish Shirley, Alex Milinovich, Kaiyin Liu, Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila, Hassan Khouli, Abhijit Duggal, Anirban Bhattacharyya","doi":"10.1186/s40635-025-00717-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The discharge practices from the intensive care unit exhibit heterogeneity and the recognition of eligible patients for discharge is often delayed. Recognizing the importance of safe discharge, which aims to minimize readmission and mortality, we developed a dynamic machine-learning model. The model aims to accurately identify patients ready for discharge, offering a comparison of its effectiveness with physician decisions in terms of safety and discrepancies in discharge readiness assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study uses data from patients in the medical ICU from 2015-to-2019 to develop ML models. The models were based on dynamic ICU-readily available features such as hourly vital signs, laboratory results, and interventions and were developed using various ML algorithms. The primary outcome was the hourly prediction of ICU discharge without readmission or death within 72 h post-discharge. These outcomes underwent subsequent validation within a distinct cohort from the year 2020. Additionally, the models' performance was assessed in comparison to physician judgments, with any discrepancies between the two carefully analyzed.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>In the 2015-to-2019 cohort, the study included 17,852 unique ICU admissions. The LightGBM model outperformed other algorithms, achieving a AUROC of 0.91 (95%CI 0.9-0.91) and performance was held in the 2020 validation cohort (n = 509) with an AUROC of 0.85 (95%CI 0.84-0.85). The calibration result showed Brier score of 0.254 (95%CI 0.253-0.255). The physician agreed with the models' discharge-readiness prediction in 84.5% of patients. In patients discharged by physicians but not deemed ready by our model, the relative risk of 72-h post-ICU adverse outcomes was 2.32 (95% CI 1.1-4.9). Furthermore, the model predicted patients' readiness for discharge between 5 (IQR: 2-13.5) and 9 (IQR: 3-17) hours earlier in our selected thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study underscores the potential of ML models in predicting patient discharge readiness, mirroring physician behavior closely while identifying eligible patients earlier. It also highlights ML models can serve as a promising screening tool to enhance ICU discharge, presenting a pathway toward more efficient and reliable critical care decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":13750,"journal":{"name":"Intensive Care Medicine Experimental","volume":"13 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11759737/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive Care Medicine Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-025-00717-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The discharge practices from the intensive care unit exhibit heterogeneity and the recognition of eligible patients for discharge is often delayed. Recognizing the importance of safe discharge, which aims to minimize readmission and mortality, we developed a dynamic machine-learning model. The model aims to accurately identify patients ready for discharge, offering a comparison of its effectiveness with physician decisions in terms of safety and discrepancies in discharge readiness assessment.

Methods: This retrospective study uses data from patients in the medical ICU from 2015-to-2019 to develop ML models. The models were based on dynamic ICU-readily available features such as hourly vital signs, laboratory results, and interventions and were developed using various ML algorithms. The primary outcome was the hourly prediction of ICU discharge without readmission or death within 72 h post-discharge. These outcomes underwent subsequent validation within a distinct cohort from the year 2020. Additionally, the models' performance was assessed in comparison to physician judgments, with any discrepancies between the two carefully analyzed.

Result: In the 2015-to-2019 cohort, the study included 17,852 unique ICU admissions. The LightGBM model outperformed other algorithms, achieving a AUROC of 0.91 (95%CI 0.9-0.91) and performance was held in the 2020 validation cohort (n = 509) with an AUROC of 0.85 (95%CI 0.84-0.85). The calibration result showed Brier score of 0.254 (95%CI 0.253-0.255). The physician agreed with the models' discharge-readiness prediction in 84.5% of patients. In patients discharged by physicians but not deemed ready by our model, the relative risk of 72-h post-ICU adverse outcomes was 2.32 (95% CI 1.1-4.9). Furthermore, the model predicted patients' readiness for discharge between 5 (IQR: 2-13.5) and 9 (IQR: 3-17) hours earlier in our selected thresholds.

Conclusion: The study underscores the potential of ML models in predicting patient discharge readiness, mirroring physician behavior closely while identifying eligible patients earlier. It also highlights ML models can serve as a promising screening tool to enhance ICU discharge, presenting a pathway toward more efficient and reliable critical care decision-making.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
探索ICU及时安全出院:机器学习预测与临床实践的比较研究。
背景:重症监护病房的出院实践表现出异质性,对符合出院条件的患者的认可往往被推迟。认识到安全出院的重要性,其目的是尽量减少再入院和死亡率,我们开发了一个动态机器学习模型。该模型旨在准确识别准备出院的患者,在安全性和出院准备评估的差异方面,将其有效性与医生决策进行比较。方法:回顾性研究2015- 2019年内科ICU患者数据,建立ML模型。这些模型基于icu随时可用的动态特征,如每小时生命体征、实验室结果和干预措施,并使用各种ML算法开发。主要终点是每小时预测出院后72小时内无再入院或死亡的ICU出院情况。这些结果随后在2020年的一个不同队列中进行了验证。此外,将模型的性能与医生的判断进行比较,仔细分析两者之间的任何差异。结果:在2015年至2019年的队列中,该研究纳入了17,852名ICU住院患者。LightGBM模型优于其他算法,AUROC为0.91 (95%CI 0.9-0.91),在2020年验证队列(n = 509)中,AUROC为0.85 (95%CI 0.84-0.85)。校正结果显示Brier评分为0.254 (95%CI 0.253 ~ 0.255)。医生同意模型对84.5%患者的出院准备预测。在由医生出院但我们的模型认为尚未准备好的患者中,icu后72小时不良结局的相对风险为2.32 (95% CI 1.1-4.9)。此外,该模型在我们选择的阈值中提前5 (IQR: 2-13.5)和9 (IQR: 3-17)小时预测了患者的出院准备情况。结论:该研究强调了ML模型在预测患者出院准备方面的潜力,在更早识别合格患者的同时,密切反映医生行为。它还强调了ML模型可以作为一种有前途的筛查工具来提高ICU的出院率,为更有效和可靠的重症监护决策提供了一条途径。
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
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
2.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Continuous-flow ventilation with VENTIJET in moderate ARDS: a pilot safety and feasibility study. Selective hemoadsorption of cytokines and platelet-neutrophil complexes mitigates lung microvascular hyperpermeability in an ovine acute lung injury model. Association between VExUS score and worsening renal function during diuretic therapy in the ICU. A new murine gram-negative sepsis model with standard care satisfies Sepsis-3 and reproduces clinical pathology. Characterizing heterogeneity and subphenotyping acute respiratory distress syndrome with computed tomography.
×
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:604180095
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