Developing and Validating a Prediction Model For Death or Critical Illness in Hospitalized Adults, an Opportunity for Human-Computer Collaboration.

Amol A Verma, Chloe Pou-Prom, Liam G McCoy, Joshua Murray, Bret Nestor, Shirley Bell, Ophyr Mourad, Michael Fralick, Jan Friedrich, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Muhammad Mamdani
{"title":"Developing and Validating a Prediction Model For Death or Critical Illness in Hospitalized Adults, an Opportunity for Human-Computer Collaboration.","authors":"Amol A Verma,&nbsp;Chloe Pou-Prom,&nbsp;Liam G McCoy,&nbsp;Joshua Murray,&nbsp;Bret Nestor,&nbsp;Shirley Bell,&nbsp;Ophyr Mourad,&nbsp;Michael Fralick,&nbsp;Jan Friedrich,&nbsp;Marzyeh Ghassemi,&nbsp;Muhammad Mamdani","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hospital early warning systems that use machine learning (ML) to predict clinical deterioration are increasingly being used to aid clinical decision-making. However, it is not known how ML predictions complement physician and nurse judgment. Our objective was to train and validate a ML model to predict patient deterioration and compare model predictions with real-world physician and nurse predictions.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective and prospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Academic tertiary care hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult general internal medicine hospitalizations.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>We developed and validated a neural network model to predict in-hospital death and ICU admission in 23,528 hospitalizations between April 2011 and April 2019. We then compared model predictions with 3,374 prospectively collected predictions from nurses, residents, and attending physicians about their own patients in 960 hospitalizations between April 30, and August 28, 2019. ML model predictions achieved clinician-level accuracy for predicting ICU admission or death (ML median F1 score 0.32 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.30-0.34], AUC 0.77 [IQ 0.76-0.78]; clinicians median F1-score 0.33 [IQR 0.30-0.35], AUC 0.64 [IQR 0.63-0.66]). ML predictions were more accurate than clinicians for ICU admission. Of all ICU admissions and deaths, 36% occurred in hospitalizations where the model and clinicians disagreed. Combining human and model predictions detected 49% of clinical deterioration events, improving sensitivity by 16% compared with clinicians alone and 24% compared with the model alone while maintaining a positive predictive value of 33%, thus keeping false alarms at a clinically acceptable level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML models can complement clinician judgment to predict clinical deterioration in hospital. These findings demonstrate important opportunities for human-computer collaboration to improve prognostication and personalized medicine in hospital.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 5","pages":"e0897"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1e/5c/cc9-5-e0897.PMC10155889.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Hospital early warning systems that use machine learning (ML) to predict clinical deterioration are increasingly being used to aid clinical decision-making. However, it is not known how ML predictions complement physician and nurse judgment. Our objective was to train and validate a ML model to predict patient deterioration and compare model predictions with real-world physician and nurse predictions.

Design: Retrospective and prospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic tertiary care hospital.

Patients: Adult general internal medicine hospitalizations.

Measurements and main results: We developed and validated a neural network model to predict in-hospital death and ICU admission in 23,528 hospitalizations between April 2011 and April 2019. We then compared model predictions with 3,374 prospectively collected predictions from nurses, residents, and attending physicians about their own patients in 960 hospitalizations between April 30, and August 28, 2019. ML model predictions achieved clinician-level accuracy for predicting ICU admission or death (ML median F1 score 0.32 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.30-0.34], AUC 0.77 [IQ 0.76-0.78]; clinicians median F1-score 0.33 [IQR 0.30-0.35], AUC 0.64 [IQR 0.63-0.66]). ML predictions were more accurate than clinicians for ICU admission. Of all ICU admissions and deaths, 36% occurred in hospitalizations where the model and clinicians disagreed. Combining human and model predictions detected 49% of clinical deterioration events, improving sensitivity by 16% compared with clinicians alone and 24% compared with the model alone while maintaining a positive predictive value of 33%, thus keeping false alarms at a clinically acceptable level.

Conclusions: ML models can complement clinician judgment to predict clinical deterioration in hospital. These findings demonstrate important opportunities for human-computer collaboration to improve prognostication and personalized medicine in hospital.

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
开发和验证住院成人死亡或危重疾病预测模型,人机协作的机会。
使用机器学习(ML)预测临床恶化的医院预警系统越来越多地被用于帮助临床决策。然而,目前尚不清楚ML预测如何补充医生和护士的判断。我们的目标是训练和验证ML模型来预测患者病情恶化,并将模型预测与现实世界的医生和护士预测进行比较。设计:回顾性和前瞻性队列研究。单位:三级专科医院。病人:成人普通内科住院。测量和主要结果:我们开发并验证了一个神经网络模型,用于预测2011年4月至2019年4月期间23,528例住院患者的院内死亡和ICU入院情况。然后,我们将模型预测与2019年4月30日至8月28日期间960例住院治疗中护士、住院医生和主治医生对3374例前瞻性收集的预测进行了比较。ML模型预测在预测ICU入院或死亡方面达到临床水平的准确性(ML中位F1评分0.32[四分位间距(IQR) 0.30-0.34], AUC 0.77 [IQ 0.76-0.78];临床医生f1评分中位数为0.33 [IQR 0.30-0.35], AUC为0.64 [IQR 0.63-0.66])。ML预测比临床医生更准确。在所有ICU入院和死亡病例中,36%发生在模型和临床医生不同意的住院情况下。将人类和模型预测相结合,检测出49%的临床恶化事件,与临床医生单独相比,敏感性提高了16%,与模型单独相比,敏感性提高了24%,同时保持了33%的阳性预测值,从而将假警报保持在临床可接受的水平。结论:ML模型可以补充临床医生的判断,预测医院的临床恶化。这些发现显示了人机协作改善医院预后和个性化医疗的重要机会。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A New Dosing Frontier: Retrospective Assessment of Effluent Flow Rates and Residual Renal Function Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Hemodynamic Determinants of Cardiac Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Racial Differences in Accuracy of Predictive Models for High-Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in COVID-19 Knowledge and Practice Gaps in Pediatric Neurocritical Care Nursing: Lessons Learned From a Specialized Educational Boot Camp Unifying Fluid Responsiveness and Tolerance With Physiology: A Dynamic Interpretation of the Diamond–Forrester Classification
×
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