根据国际疾病分类代码估算伤害严重程度的深度学习方法比较。

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Traffic Injury Prevention Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1080/15389588.2024.2356663
Ayush Doshi , Charbel Marche , Pavel Chernyavskiy , George Glass , Thomas Hartka
{"title":"根据国际疾病分类代码估算伤害严重程度的深度学习方法比较。","authors":"Ayush Doshi ,&nbsp;Charbel Marche ,&nbsp;Pavel Chernyavskiy ,&nbsp;George Glass ,&nbsp;Thomas Hartka","doi":"10.1080/15389588.2024.2356663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The injury severity classification based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) provides information that allows for standardized comparisons for injury research. However, the majority of injury data is captured using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which lacks injury severity information. It has been shown that the encoder-decoder-based neural machine translation (NMT) model is more accurate than other methods for determining injury severity from ICD codes. The objectives of this project were to determine if feed-forward neural networks (FFNN) perform as well as NMT and to determine if direct estimation of injury severity is more accurate than using AIS codes as an intermediary (indirect method).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patient data from the National Trauma Data Bank were used to develop and test the four models (NMT/Indirect, NMT/Direct, FFNN/Indirect, FFNN/Direct). There were 2,031,793 cases from 2017–2018 used to train and 1,091,792 cases from 2019 were used for testing. The primary outcome of interest was the percent of cases with the correct binary classification of Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16, using ISS values recorded in NTDB for benchmarking. The secondary outcome was the percent of predicted ISS exactly matching the recorded ISS.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The results show that indirect estimation through first converting to AIS using an NMT was the most accurate in predicting ISS ≥ 16 (94.0%), followed by direct estimation with FFNN (93.4%), direct estimation with NMT (93.1%), and then indirect estimation with FFNN (93.1%), with statistically significant differences in pairwise comparison. The rankings were the same when evaluating models based on exactly matches of ISS. Training times were similar for all models (range 11–14 h), but testing was much faster for FFNN models (GPU: 1–2 min) compared to the NMT models (GPU: 69–82 min).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The most accurate method for obtaining injury severity from ICD was NMT using AIS codes as an intermediary (indirect method), although all methods performed well. The indirect NMT model was the most resource intensive in terms of processing time. The optimal approach for researchers will be based on their needs and the computing resources available.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54422,"journal":{"name":"Traffic Injury Prevention","volume":"25 1","pages":"Pages S25-S32"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of deep learning approaches to estimate injury severity from the International Classification of Diseases codes\",\"authors\":\"Ayush Doshi ,&nbsp;Charbel Marche ,&nbsp;Pavel Chernyavskiy ,&nbsp;George Glass ,&nbsp;Thomas Hartka\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15389588.2024.2356663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The injury severity classification based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) provides information that allows for standardized comparisons for injury research. However, the majority of injury data is captured using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which lacks injury severity information. It has been shown that the encoder-decoder-based neural machine translation (NMT) model is more accurate than other methods for determining injury severity from ICD codes. The objectives of this project were to determine if feed-forward neural networks (FFNN) perform as well as NMT and to determine if direct estimation of injury severity is more accurate than using AIS codes as an intermediary (indirect method).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patient data from the National Trauma Data Bank were used to develop and test the four models (NMT/Indirect, NMT/Direct, FFNN/Indirect, FFNN/Direct). There were 2,031,793 cases from 2017–2018 used to train and 1,091,792 cases from 2019 were used for testing. The primary outcome of interest was the percent of cases with the correct binary classification of Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16, using ISS values recorded in NTDB for benchmarking. The secondary outcome was the percent of predicted ISS exactly matching the recorded ISS.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The results show that indirect estimation through first converting to AIS using an NMT was the most accurate in predicting ISS ≥ 16 (94.0%), followed by direct estimation with FFNN (93.4%), direct estimation with NMT (93.1%), and then indirect estimation with FFNN (93.1%), with statistically significant differences in pairwise comparison. The rankings were the same when evaluating models based on exactly matches of ISS. Training times were similar for all models (range 11–14 h), but testing was much faster for FFNN models (GPU: 1–2 min) compared to the NMT models (GPU: 69–82 min).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The most accurate method for obtaining injury severity from ICD was NMT using AIS codes as an intermediary (indirect method), although all methods performed well. The indirect NMT model was the most resource intensive in terms of processing time. The optimal approach for researchers will be based on their needs and the computing resources available.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Traffic Injury Prevention\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages S25-S32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Traffic Injury Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1538958824001449\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Traffic Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1538958824001449","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:以简易伤害量表 (AIS) 为基础的伤害严重程度分类为伤害研究提供了标准化比较的信息。然而,大多数伤害数据都是通过国际疾病分类(ICD)获取的,该分类缺乏伤害严重程度信息。有研究表明,基于编码器-解码器的神经机器翻译(NMT)模型在根据 ICD 代码确定伤害严重程度方面比其他方法更准确。本项目的目标是确定前馈神经网络(FFNN)的性能是否与 NMT 相当,并确定直接估计受伤严重程度是否比使用 AIS 代码作为中介(间接方法)更准确:方法: 国家创伤数据库中的患者数据被用于开发和测试四种模型(NMT/间接法、NMT/间接法、FFNN/间接法、FFNN/间接法)。2017-2018年的2,031,793个病例用于训练,2019年的1,091,792个病例用于测试。主要结果是受伤严重程度评分(ISS)≥16 的二元分类正确率,使用 NTDB 中记录的 ISS 值作为基准。次要结果是预测的 ISS 与记录的 ISS 完全一致的百分比:结果显示,在预测 ISS ≥ 16 时,使用 NMT 首先转换为 AIS 进行间接估计的准确率最高(94.0%),其次是使用 FFNN 进行直接估计(93.4%)、使用 NMT 进行直接估计(93.1%),然后是使用 FFNN 进行间接估计(93.1%)。在评估基于 ISS 精确匹配的模型时,排名相同。所有模型的训练时间相似(11-14 小时不等),但与 NMT 模型(GPU:69-82 分钟)相比,FFNN 模型(GPU:1-2 分钟)的测试时间要快得多:结论:从 ICD 获取损伤严重程度最准确的方法是以 AIS 代码为中介的 NMT(间接法),尽管所有方法都表现良好。就处理时间而言,间接 NMT 模型最耗费资源。研究人员应根据自身需求和可用计算资源选择最佳方法。
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
Comparison of deep learning approaches to estimate injury severity from the International Classification of Diseases codes

Objective

The injury severity classification based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) provides information that allows for standardized comparisons for injury research. However, the majority of injury data is captured using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which lacks injury severity information. It has been shown that the encoder-decoder-based neural machine translation (NMT) model is more accurate than other methods for determining injury severity from ICD codes. The objectives of this project were to determine if feed-forward neural networks (FFNN) perform as well as NMT and to determine if direct estimation of injury severity is more accurate than using AIS codes as an intermediary (indirect method).

Methods

Patient data from the National Trauma Data Bank were used to develop and test the four models (NMT/Indirect, NMT/Direct, FFNN/Indirect, FFNN/Direct). There were 2,031,793 cases from 2017–2018 used to train and 1,091,792 cases from 2019 were used for testing. The primary outcome of interest was the percent of cases with the correct binary classification of Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16, using ISS values recorded in NTDB for benchmarking. The secondary outcome was the percent of predicted ISS exactly matching the recorded ISS.

Results

The results show that indirect estimation through first converting to AIS using an NMT was the most accurate in predicting ISS ≥ 16 (94.0%), followed by direct estimation with FFNN (93.4%), direct estimation with NMT (93.1%), and then indirect estimation with FFNN (93.1%), with statistically significant differences in pairwise comparison. The rankings were the same when evaluating models based on exactly matches of ISS. Training times were similar for all models (range 11–14 h), but testing was much faster for FFNN models (GPU: 1–2 min) compared to the NMT models (GPU: 69–82 min).

Conclusions

The most accurate method for obtaining injury severity from ICD was NMT using AIS codes as an intermediary (indirect method), although all methods performed well. The indirect NMT model was the most resource intensive in terms of processing time. The optimal approach for researchers will be based on their needs and the computing resources available.
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
Traffic Injury Prevention
Traffic Injury Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The purpose of Traffic Injury Prevention is to bridge the disciplines of medicine, engineering, public health and traffic safety in order to foster the science of traffic injury prevention. The archival journal focuses on research, interventions and evaluations within the areas of traffic safety, crash causation, injury prevention and treatment. General topics within the journal''s scope are driver behavior, road infrastructure, emerging crash avoidance technologies, crash and injury epidemiology, alcohol and drugs, impact injury biomechanics, vehicle crashworthiness, occupant restraints, pedestrian safety, evaluation of interventions, economic consequences and emergency and clinical care with specific application to traffic injury prevention. The journal includes full length papers, review articles, case studies, brief technical notes and commentaries.
期刊最新文献
Capturing signals of road traffic safety risk: based on the spatial-temporal correlation between traffic violations and crashes. The use of prescription medication and other drugs by New Zealand drivers with illegal blood alcohol levels. Unpacking the COVID-19 roadway fatality paradox: an analysis of motor vehicle crashes in Michigan 2019-2022. Texting, talking, trawling and tunes: Risk perceptions, phone dependence and different types of phone use while driving behaviors. Effect of load limiting the shoulder-belt on right-front passenger kinematics in oblique-offset and NCAP frontal crash tests.
×
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