开发和验证用于预测成人生理退化的深度学习模型。

Q4 Medicine Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2024-09-11 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001151
Supreeth P Shashikumar, Joshua Pei Le, Nathan Yung, James Ford, Karandeep Singh, Atul Malhotra, Shamim Nemati, Gabriel Wardi
{"title":"开发和验证用于预测成人生理退化的深度学习模型。","authors":"Supreeth P Shashikumar, Joshua Pei Le, Nathan Yung, James Ford, Karandeep Singh, Atul Malhotra, Shamim Nemati, Gabriel Wardi","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prediction-based strategies for physiologic deterioration offer the potential for earlier clinical interventions that improve patient outcomes. Current strategies are limited because they operate on inconsistent definitions of deterioration, attempt to dichotomize a dynamic and progressive phenomenon, and offer poor performance.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Can a deep learning deterioration prediction model (Deep Learning Enhanced Triage and Emergency Response for Inpatient Optimization [DETERIO]) based on a consensus definition of deterioration (the Adult Inpatient Decompensation Event [AIDE] criteria) and that approaches deterioration as a state \"value-estimation\" problem outperform a commercially available deterioration score?</p><p><strong>Derivation cohort: </strong>The derivation cohort contained retrospective patient data collected from both inpatient services (inpatient) and emergency departments (EDs) of two hospitals within the University of California San Diego Health System. There were 330,729 total patients; 71,735 were inpatient and 258,994 were ED. Of these data, 20% were randomly sampled as a retrospective \"testing set.\"</p><p><strong>Validation cohort: </strong>The validation cohort contained temporal patient data. There were 65,898 total patients; 13,750 were inpatient and 52,148 were ED.</p><p><strong>Prediction model: </strong>DETERIO was developed and validated on these data, using the AIDE criteria to generate a composite score. DETERIO's architecture builds upon previous work. DETERIO's prediction performance up to 12 hours before T0 was compared against Epic Deterioration Index (EDI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the retrospective testing set, DETERIO's area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.797 and 0.874 for inpatient and ED subsets, respectively. In the temporal validation cohort, the corresponding AUC were 0.775 and 0.856, respectively. DETERIO outperformed EDI in the inpatient validation cohort (AUC, 0.775 vs. 0.721; p < 0.01) while maintaining superior sensitivity and a comparable rate of false alarms (sensitivity, 45.50% vs. 30.00%; positive predictive value, 20.50% vs. 16.11%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DETERIO demonstrates promise in the viability of a state value-estimation approach for predicting adult physiologic deterioration. It may outperform EDI while offering additional clinical utility in triage and clinician interaction with prediction confidence and explanations. Additional studies are needed to assess generalizability and real-world clinical impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"6 9","pages":"e1151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392495/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Prediction of Adult Physiological Deterioration.\",\"authors\":\"Supreeth P Shashikumar, Joshua Pei Le, Nathan Yung, James Ford, Karandeep Singh, Atul Malhotra, Shamim Nemati, Gabriel Wardi\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prediction-based strategies for physiologic deterioration offer the potential for earlier clinical interventions that improve patient outcomes. Current strategies are limited because they operate on inconsistent definitions of deterioration, attempt to dichotomize a dynamic and progressive phenomenon, and offer poor performance.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Can a deep learning deterioration prediction model (Deep Learning Enhanced Triage and Emergency Response for Inpatient Optimization [DETERIO]) based on a consensus definition of deterioration (the Adult Inpatient Decompensation Event [AIDE] criteria) and that approaches deterioration as a state \\\"value-estimation\\\" problem outperform a commercially available deterioration score?</p><p><strong>Derivation cohort: </strong>The derivation cohort contained retrospective patient data collected from both inpatient services (inpatient) and emergency departments (EDs) of two hospitals within the University of California San Diego Health System. There were 330,729 total patients; 71,735 were inpatient and 258,994 were ED. Of these data, 20% were randomly sampled as a retrospective \\\"testing set.\\\"</p><p><strong>Validation cohort: </strong>The validation cohort contained temporal patient data. There were 65,898 total patients; 13,750 were inpatient and 52,148 were ED.</p><p><strong>Prediction model: </strong>DETERIO was developed and validated on these data, using the AIDE criteria to generate a composite score. DETERIO's architecture builds upon previous work. DETERIO's prediction performance up to 12 hours before T0 was compared against Epic Deterioration Index (EDI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the retrospective testing set, DETERIO's area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.797 and 0.874 for inpatient and ED subsets, respectively. In the temporal validation cohort, the corresponding AUC were 0.775 and 0.856, respectively. DETERIO outperformed EDI in the inpatient validation cohort (AUC, 0.775 vs. 0.721; p < 0.01) while maintaining superior sensitivity and a comparable rate of false alarms (sensitivity, 45.50% vs. 30.00%; positive predictive value, 20.50% vs. 16.11%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DETERIO demonstrates promise in the viability of a state value-estimation approach for predicting adult physiologic deterioration. It may outperform EDI while offering additional clinical utility in triage and clinician interaction with prediction confidence and explanations. Additional studies are needed to assess generalizability and real-world clinical impact.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"volume\":\"6 9\",\"pages\":\"e1151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392495/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001151\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:以预测为基础的生理机能衰退策略为尽早采取临床干预措施、改善患者预后提供了可能。目前的策略存在局限性,因为它们对病情恶化的定义不一致,试图将一种动态和渐进的现象二分法,而且效果不佳:深度学习恶化预测模型(Deep Learning Enhanced Triage and Emergency Response for Inpatient Optimization [DETERIO])基于一致的恶化定义(成人住院病人失代偿事件 [AIDE] 标准),并将恶化作为一个状态 "价值估计 "问题来处理,该模型的性能能否优于市售的恶化评分?推导队列:推导队列包含从加利福尼亚大学圣地亚哥分校医疗系统内两家医院的住院部和急诊部收集的病人回顾性数据。患者总数为 330,729 人,其中 71,735 人为住院患者,258,994 人为急诊患者。其中 20% 的数据被随机抽样作为回顾性 "测试集"。共有 65,898 名患者,其中 13,750 人为住院患者,52,148 人为急诊患者:DETERIO 利用 AIDE 标准生成综合评分,并在这些数据上进行了开发和验证。DETERIO 的结构建立在以前工作的基础上。将 DETERIO 在 T0 前 12 小时内的预测性能与 Epic Deterioration Index (EDI) 进行了比较:结果:在回顾性测试集中,DETERIO 在住院病人和急诊室子集中的接收器操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)分别为 0.797 和 0.874。在时间验证队列中,相应的 AUC 分别为 0.775 和 0.856。DETERIO 在住院病人验证队列中的表现优于 EDI(AUC, 0.775 vs. 0.721; p < 0.01),同时保持了较高的灵敏度和相当的误报率(灵敏度,45.50% vs. 30.00%;阳性预测值,20.50% vs. 16.11%):结论:DETERIO 证明了预测成人生理恶化的状态值估计方法的可行性。它可能优于 EDI,同时在分诊和临床医生与预测信心和解释的互动中提供额外的临床实用性。还需要进行更多的研究来评估其通用性和实际临床影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Prediction of Adult Physiological Deterioration.

Background: Prediction-based strategies for physiologic deterioration offer the potential for earlier clinical interventions that improve patient outcomes. Current strategies are limited because they operate on inconsistent definitions of deterioration, attempt to dichotomize a dynamic and progressive phenomenon, and offer poor performance.

Objective: Can a deep learning deterioration prediction model (Deep Learning Enhanced Triage and Emergency Response for Inpatient Optimization [DETERIO]) based on a consensus definition of deterioration (the Adult Inpatient Decompensation Event [AIDE] criteria) and that approaches deterioration as a state "value-estimation" problem outperform a commercially available deterioration score?

Derivation cohort: The derivation cohort contained retrospective patient data collected from both inpatient services (inpatient) and emergency departments (EDs) of two hospitals within the University of California San Diego Health System. There were 330,729 total patients; 71,735 were inpatient and 258,994 were ED. Of these data, 20% were randomly sampled as a retrospective "testing set."

Validation cohort: The validation cohort contained temporal patient data. There were 65,898 total patients; 13,750 were inpatient and 52,148 were ED.

Prediction model: DETERIO was developed and validated on these data, using the AIDE criteria to generate a composite score. DETERIO's architecture builds upon previous work. DETERIO's prediction performance up to 12 hours before T0 was compared against Epic Deterioration Index (EDI).

Results: In the retrospective testing set, DETERIO's area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.797 and 0.874 for inpatient and ED subsets, respectively. In the temporal validation cohort, the corresponding AUC were 0.775 and 0.856, respectively. DETERIO outperformed EDI in the inpatient validation cohort (AUC, 0.775 vs. 0.721; p < 0.01) while maintaining superior sensitivity and a comparable rate of false alarms (sensitivity, 45.50% vs. 30.00%; positive predictive value, 20.50% vs. 16.11%).

Conclusions: DETERIO demonstrates promise in the viability of a state value-estimation approach for predicting adult physiologic deterioration. It may outperform EDI while offering additional clinical utility in triage and clinician interaction with prediction confidence and explanations. Additional studies are needed to assess generalizability and real-world clinical impact.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
"Awake" Cannulation of Patients for Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygen: An Analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry. Current Emergency Medical Service Vasoactive Use for the Management of Shock. Critical Data for Critical Care: A Primer on Leveraging Electronic Health Record Data for Research From Society of Critical Care Medicine's Panel on Data Sharing and Harmonization. Clinical Subtype Trajectories in Sepsis Patients Admitted to the ICU: A Secondary Analysis of an Observational Study. Septic Shock Requiring Three Vasopressors: Patient Demographics and Outcomes.
×
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