Jian Fransén, Johan Lundin, Filip Fredén, Fredrik Huss
{"title":"使用烧伤重症监护数据的机器学习算法进行死亡率预测的概念验证研究。","authors":"Jian Fransén, Johan Lundin, Filip Fredén, Fredrik Huss","doi":"10.1177/20595131211066585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Burn injuries are a common traumatic injury. Large burns have high mortality requiring intensive care and accurate mortality predictions. To assess if machine learning (ML) could improve predictions, ML algorithms were tested and compared with the original and revised Baux score.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Admission data and mortality outcomes were collected from patients at Uppsala University Hospital Burn Centre from 2002 to 2019. Prognostic variables were selected, ML algorithms trained and predictions assessed by analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Comparison was made with Baux scores using DeLong test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 17 prognostic variables were selected from 92 patients. AUCs in leave-one-out cross-validation for a decision tree model, an extreme boosting model, a random forest model, a support-vector machine (SVM) model and a generalised linear regression model (GLM) were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72-0.94), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1) and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.94), respectively. AUCs for the Baux score and revised Baux score were 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75-0.95) and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.94). No significant differences were observed when comparing ML algorithms with Baux score and revised Baux score. Secondary variable selection was made to analyse model performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This proof-of-concept study showed initial credibility in using ML algorithms to predict mortality in burn patients. The sample size was small and future studies are needed with larger sample sizes, further variable selections and prospective testing of the algorithms.</p><p><strong>Lay summary: </strong>Burn injuries are one of the most common traumatic injuries especially in countries with limited prevention and healthcare resources. To treat a patient with large burns who has been admitted to an intensive care unit, it is often necessary to assess the risk of a fatal outcome. Physicians traditionally use simplified scores to calculate risks. One commonly used score, the Baux score, uses age of the patient and the size of the burn to predict the risk of death. Adding the factor of inhalation injury, the score is then called the revised Baux score. However, there are a number of additional causes that can influence the risk of fatal outcomes that Baux scores do not take into account. Machine learning is a method of data modelling where the system learns to predict outcomes based on previous cases and is a branch of artificial intelligence. In this study we evaluated several machine learning methods for outcome prediction in patients admitted for burn injury. We gathered data on 93 patients at admission to the intensive care unit and our experiments show that machine learning methods can reach an accuracy comparable with Baux scores in calculating the risk of fatal outcomes. This study represents a proof of principle and future studies on larger patient series are required to verify our results as well as to evaluate the methods on patients in real-life situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":21495,"journal":{"name":"Scars, burns & healing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8859689/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A proof-of-concept study on mortality prediction with machine learning algorithms using burn intensive care data.\",\"authors\":\"Jian Fransén, Johan Lundin, Filip Fredén, Fredrik Huss\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20595131211066585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Burn injuries are a common traumatic injury. Large burns have high mortality requiring intensive care and accurate mortality predictions. To assess if machine learning (ML) could improve predictions, ML algorithms were tested and compared with the original and revised Baux score.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Admission data and mortality outcomes were collected from patients at Uppsala University Hospital Burn Centre from 2002 to 2019. Prognostic variables were selected, ML algorithms trained and predictions assessed by analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Comparison was made with Baux scores using DeLong test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 17 prognostic variables were selected from 92 patients. AUCs in leave-one-out cross-validation for a decision tree model, an extreme boosting model, a random forest model, a support-vector machine (SVM) model and a generalised linear regression model (GLM) were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72-0.94), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1) and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.94), respectively. AUCs for the Baux score and revised Baux score were 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75-0.95) and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.94). No significant differences were observed when comparing ML algorithms with Baux score and revised Baux score. Secondary variable selection was made to analyse model performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This proof-of-concept study showed initial credibility in using ML algorithms to predict mortality in burn patients. The sample size was small and future studies are needed with larger sample sizes, further variable selections and prospective testing of the algorithms.</p><p><strong>Lay summary: </strong>Burn injuries are one of the most common traumatic injuries especially in countries with limited prevention and healthcare resources. To treat a patient with large burns who has been admitted to an intensive care unit, it is often necessary to assess the risk of a fatal outcome. Physicians traditionally use simplified scores to calculate risks. One commonly used score, the Baux score, uses age of the patient and the size of the burn to predict the risk of death. Adding the factor of inhalation injury, the score is then called the revised Baux score. However, there are a number of additional causes that can influence the risk of fatal outcomes that Baux scores do not take into account. Machine learning is a method of data modelling where the system learns to predict outcomes based on previous cases and is a branch of artificial intelligence. In this study we evaluated several machine learning methods for outcome prediction in patients admitted for burn injury. We gathered data on 93 patients at admission to the intensive care unit and our experiments show that machine learning methods can reach an accuracy comparable with Baux scores in calculating the risk of fatal outcomes. This study represents a proof of principle and future studies on larger patient series are required to verify our results as well as to evaluate the methods on patients in real-life situations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21495,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scars, burns & healing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8859689/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scars, burns & healing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20595131211066585\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scars, burns & healing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20595131211066585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
简介:烧伤是一种常见的外伤性损伤。大面积烧伤死亡率高,需要重症监护和准确的死亡率预测。为了评估机器学习(ML)是否可以改善预测,对ML算法进行了测试,并将其与原始和修订后的Baux评分进行了比较。方法:收集2002年至2019年乌普萨拉大学医院烧伤中心患者的入院数据和死亡率结果。选择预后变量,训练ML算法,并通过分析受试者工作特征曲线(AUC)下的面积来评估预测。采用DeLong检验与Baux评分进行比较。结果:共从92例患者中筛选出17个预后变量。决策树模型、极端增强模型、随机森林模型、支持向量机(SVM)模型和广义线性回归模型(GLM)的留一交叉验证auc分别为0.83(95%置信区间[CI] = 0.72-0.94)、0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1)、0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1)、0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1)和0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.94)。Baux评分和修正Baux评分的auc分别为0.85 (95% CI = 0.75-0.95)和0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.94)。ML算法与Baux评分和修改后的Baux评分比较无显著差异。选取二次变量分析模型性能。结论:这项概念验证研究显示了使用ML算法预测烧伤患者死亡率的初步可信度。样本量较小,未来的研究需要更大的样本量,进一步的变量选择和算法的前瞻性测试。摘要:烧伤是最常见的创伤性损伤之一,特别是在预防和医疗资源有限的国家。对于已入住重症监护病房的大面积烧伤患者,通常有必要评估致命结果的风险。医生传统上使用简化的分数来计算风险。一种常用的评分,Baux评分,使用患者的年龄和烧伤的大小来预测死亡的风险。再加上吸入性损伤因素,该评分称为修正Baux评分。然而,还有一些其他的原因可能会影响Baux评分没有考虑到的致命结果的风险。机器学习是一种数据建模方法,系统可以根据以前的案例学习预测结果,是人工智能的一个分支。在这项研究中,我们评估了几种机器学习方法用于预测入院的烧伤患者的预后。我们收集了93名重症监护病房入院患者的数据,我们的实验表明,机器学习方法在计算致命结果风险方面可以达到与Baux评分相当的准确性。这项研究代表了一个原理证明,未来需要对更大的患者系列进行研究,以验证我们的结果,并在现实生活中评估患者的方法。
A proof-of-concept study on mortality prediction with machine learning algorithms using burn intensive care data.
Introduction: Burn injuries are a common traumatic injury. Large burns have high mortality requiring intensive care and accurate mortality predictions. To assess if machine learning (ML) could improve predictions, ML algorithms were tested and compared with the original and revised Baux score.
Methods: Admission data and mortality outcomes were collected from patients at Uppsala University Hospital Burn Centre from 2002 to 2019. Prognostic variables were selected, ML algorithms trained and predictions assessed by analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Comparison was made with Baux scores using DeLong test.
Results: A total of 17 prognostic variables were selected from 92 patients. AUCs in leave-one-out cross-validation for a decision tree model, an extreme boosting model, a random forest model, a support-vector machine (SVM) model and a generalised linear regression model (GLM) were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72-0.94), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.84-1) and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.94), respectively. AUCs for the Baux score and revised Baux score were 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75-0.95) and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.74-0.94). No significant differences were observed when comparing ML algorithms with Baux score and revised Baux score. Secondary variable selection was made to analyse model performance.
Conclusion: This proof-of-concept study showed initial credibility in using ML algorithms to predict mortality in burn patients. The sample size was small and future studies are needed with larger sample sizes, further variable selections and prospective testing of the algorithms.
Lay summary: Burn injuries are one of the most common traumatic injuries especially in countries with limited prevention and healthcare resources. To treat a patient with large burns who has been admitted to an intensive care unit, it is often necessary to assess the risk of a fatal outcome. Physicians traditionally use simplified scores to calculate risks. One commonly used score, the Baux score, uses age of the patient and the size of the burn to predict the risk of death. Adding the factor of inhalation injury, the score is then called the revised Baux score. However, there are a number of additional causes that can influence the risk of fatal outcomes that Baux scores do not take into account. Machine learning is a method of data modelling where the system learns to predict outcomes based on previous cases and is a branch of artificial intelligence. In this study we evaluated several machine learning methods for outcome prediction in patients admitted for burn injury. We gathered data on 93 patients at admission to the intensive care unit and our experiments show that machine learning methods can reach an accuracy comparable with Baux scores in calculating the risk of fatal outcomes. This study represents a proof of principle and future studies on larger patient series are required to verify our results as well as to evaluate the methods on patients in real-life situations.