机器学习揭示了接受神经外科会诊的脑外伤患者在姑息治疗时机选择上的人口统计学差异。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurocritical Care Pub Date : 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1007/s12028-024-02172-2
Carlos A Aude, Vikas N Vattipally, Oishika Das, Kathleen R Ran, Ganiat A Giwa, Jordina Rincon-Torroella, Risheng Xu, James P Byrne, Susanne Muehlschlegel, Jose I Suarez, Debraj Mukherjee, Judy Huang, Tej D Azad, Chetan Bettegowda
{"title":"机器学习揭示了接受神经外科会诊的脑外伤患者在姑息治疗时机选择上的人口统计学差异。","authors":"Carlos A Aude, Vikas N Vattipally, Oishika Das, Kathleen R Ran, Ganiat A Giwa, Jordina Rincon-Torroella, Risheng Xu, James P Byrne, Susanne Muehlschlegel, Jose I Suarez, Debraj Mukherjee, Judy Huang, Tej D Azad, Chetan Bettegowda","doi":"10.1007/s12028-024-02172-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Timely palliative care (PC) consultations offer demonstrable benefits for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), yet their implementation remains inconsistent. This study employs machine learning methods to identify distinct patient phenotypes and elucidate the primary drivers of PC consultation timing variability in TBI management, aiming to uncover disparities and inform more equitable care strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data on admission, hospital course, and outcomes were collected for a cohort of 232 patients with TBI who received both PC consultations and neurosurgical consultations during the same hospitalization. Patient phenotypes were uncovered using principal component analysis and K-means clustering; time-to-PC consultation for each phenotype was subsequently compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. An extreme gradient boosting model with Shapley Additive Explanations identified key factors influencing PC consultation timing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three distinct patient clusters emerged: cluster A (n = 86), comprising older adult White women (median 87 years) with mild TBI, received the earliest PC consultations (median 2.5 days); cluster B (n = 108), older adult White men (median 81 years) with mild TBI, experienced delayed PC consultations (median 5.0 days); and cluster C (n = 38), middle-aged (median: 46.5 years), severely injured, non-White patients, had the latest PC consultations (median 9.0 days). The clusters did not differ by discharge disposition (p = 0.4) or inpatient mortality (p > 0.9); however, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant difference in time-to-PC consultation (p < 0.001), despite no differences in time-to-mortality (p = 0.18). Shapley Additive Explanations analysis of the extreme gradient boosting model identified age, sex, and race as the most influential drivers of PC consultation timing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study unveils crucial disparities in PC consultation timing for patients with TBI, primarily driven by demographic factors rather than clinical presentation or injury characteristics. The identification of distinct patient phenotypes and quantification of factors influencing PC consultation timing provide a foundation for developing for standardized protocols and decision support tools to ensure timely and equitable palliative care access for patients with TBI.</p>","PeriodicalId":19118,"journal":{"name":"Neurocritical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine Learning Reveals Demographic Disparities in Palliative Care Timing Among Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury Receiving Neurosurgical Consultation.\",\"authors\":\"Carlos A Aude, Vikas N Vattipally, Oishika Das, Kathleen R Ran, Ganiat A Giwa, Jordina Rincon-Torroella, Risheng Xu, James P Byrne, Susanne Muehlschlegel, Jose I Suarez, Debraj Mukherjee, Judy Huang, Tej D Azad, Chetan Bettegowda\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12028-024-02172-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Timely palliative care (PC) consultations offer demonstrable benefits for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), yet their implementation remains inconsistent. This study employs machine learning methods to identify distinct patient phenotypes and elucidate the primary drivers of PC consultation timing variability in TBI management, aiming to uncover disparities and inform more equitable care strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data on admission, hospital course, and outcomes were collected for a cohort of 232 patients with TBI who received both PC consultations and neurosurgical consultations during the same hospitalization. Patient phenotypes were uncovered using principal component analysis and K-means clustering; time-to-PC consultation for each phenotype was subsequently compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. An extreme gradient boosting model with Shapley Additive Explanations identified key factors influencing PC consultation timing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three distinct patient clusters emerged: cluster A (n = 86), comprising older adult White women (median 87 years) with mild TBI, received the earliest PC consultations (median 2.5 days); cluster B (n = 108), older adult White men (median 81 years) with mild TBI, experienced delayed PC consultations (median 5.0 days); and cluster C (n = 38), middle-aged (median: 46.5 years), severely injured, non-White patients, had the latest PC consultations (median 9.0 days). The clusters did not differ by discharge disposition (p = 0.4) or inpatient mortality (p > 0.9); however, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant difference in time-to-PC consultation (p < 0.001), despite no differences in time-to-mortality (p = 0.18). Shapley Additive Explanations analysis of the extreme gradient boosting model identified age, sex, and race as the most influential drivers of PC consultation timing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study unveils crucial disparities in PC consultation timing for patients with TBI, primarily driven by demographic factors rather than clinical presentation or injury characteristics. The identification of distinct patient phenotypes and quantification of factors influencing PC consultation timing provide a foundation for developing for standardized protocols and decision support tools to ensure timely and equitable palliative care access for patients with TBI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurocritical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurocritical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02172-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocritical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02172-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:及时的姑息治疗(PC)会诊为创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者提供了明显的益处,但其实施仍不一致。本研究采用机器学习方法来识别不同的患者表型,并阐明创伤性脑损伤管理中PC咨询时间变化的主要驱动因素,旨在揭示差异并为更公平的护理策略提供信息。方法:收集232例TBI患者的入院、病程和结局数据,这些患者在同一住院期间同时接受了PC会诊和神经外科会诊。使用主成分分析和k -均值聚类揭示患者表型;随后通过Kaplan-Meier分析比较每种表型到pc咨询的时间。基于Shapley加性解释的极端梯度增强模型确定了影响PC咨询时间的关键因素。结果:出现了三个不同的患者组:A组(n = 86),包括轻度TBI的老年白人女性(中位年龄87岁),接受了最早的PC咨询(中位2.5天);B组(n = 108),轻度TBI的老年白人男性(中位81岁),延迟PC咨询(中位5.0天);C组(n = 38),中年(中位数:46.5岁),严重受伤,非白人患者,最近一次PC咨询(中位数为9.0天)。这些集群在出院处置(p = 0.4)或住院死亡率(p = 0.9)方面没有差异;然而,Kaplan-Meier分析揭示了到PC会诊时间的显著差异(p结论:本研究揭示了TBI患者PC会诊时间的关键差异,主要由人口统计学因素驱动,而不是临床表现或损伤特征。识别不同的患者表型和量化影响PC咨询时间的因素为制定标准化方案和决策支持工具提供了基础,以确保TBI患者及时和公平地获得姑息治疗。
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
Machine Learning Reveals Demographic Disparities in Palliative Care Timing Among Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury Receiving Neurosurgical Consultation.

Background: Timely palliative care (PC) consultations offer demonstrable benefits for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), yet their implementation remains inconsistent. This study employs machine learning methods to identify distinct patient phenotypes and elucidate the primary drivers of PC consultation timing variability in TBI management, aiming to uncover disparities and inform more equitable care strategies.

Methods: Data on admission, hospital course, and outcomes were collected for a cohort of 232 patients with TBI who received both PC consultations and neurosurgical consultations during the same hospitalization. Patient phenotypes were uncovered using principal component analysis and K-means clustering; time-to-PC consultation for each phenotype was subsequently compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. An extreme gradient boosting model with Shapley Additive Explanations identified key factors influencing PC consultation timing.

Results: Three distinct patient clusters emerged: cluster A (n = 86), comprising older adult White women (median 87 years) with mild TBI, received the earliest PC consultations (median 2.5 days); cluster B (n = 108), older adult White men (median 81 years) with mild TBI, experienced delayed PC consultations (median 5.0 days); and cluster C (n = 38), middle-aged (median: 46.5 years), severely injured, non-White patients, had the latest PC consultations (median 9.0 days). The clusters did not differ by discharge disposition (p = 0.4) or inpatient mortality (p > 0.9); however, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant difference in time-to-PC consultation (p < 0.001), despite no differences in time-to-mortality (p = 0.18). Shapley Additive Explanations analysis of the extreme gradient boosting model identified age, sex, and race as the most influential drivers of PC consultation timing.

Conclusions: This study unveils crucial disparities in PC consultation timing for patients with TBI, primarily driven by demographic factors rather than clinical presentation or injury characteristics. The identification of distinct patient phenotypes and quantification of factors influencing PC consultation timing provide a foundation for developing for standardized protocols and decision support tools to ensure timely and equitable palliative care access for patients with TBI.

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
Neurocritical Care
Neurocritical Care 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.60%
发文量
221
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurocritical Care is a peer reviewed scientific publication whose major goal is to disseminate new knowledge on all aspects of acute neurological care. It is directed towards neurosurgeons, neuro-intensivists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and critical care nurses treating patients with urgent neurologic disorders. These are conditions that may potentially evolve rapidly and could need immediate medical or surgical intervention. Neurocritical Care provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in intensive care neurology, neurosurgery and neuroanesthesia and includes information about new therapeutic avenues and technological innovations. Neurocritical Care is the official journal of the Neurocritical Care Society.
期刊最新文献
Palliative Care Spiritual Assessment and Goals-of-Care Discussions in the Neurocritical Care Unit: Collaborating with Chaplains. States Do Not Delineate the "Accepted Medical Standards" for Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Determination. Does Celecoxib Actually Reduce Mortality in Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage? Hemoglobin Decrements are Associated with Ischemic Brain Lesions and Poor Outcomes in Patients with Intracerebral Hemorrhage. Safety Analysis of Visual Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Neurocritical Care Patients with Anticoagulation and Antithrombosis.
×
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