合并症评分和机器学习方法可以改善膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术的风险评估

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY Bladder Cancer Pub Date : 2022-06-03 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3233/BLC-211640
Frederik Wessels, Isabelle Bußoff, Sophia Adam, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Manuel Neuberger, Philipp Nuhn, Maurice S Michel, Maximilian C Kriegmair
{"title":"合并症评分和机器学习方法可以改善膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术的风险评估","authors":"Frederik Wessels, Isabelle Bußoff, Sophia Adam, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Manuel Neuberger, Philipp Nuhn, Maurice S Michel, Maximilian C Kriegmair","doi":"10.3233/BLC-211640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pre-operative risk assessment in radical cystectomy (RC) is an ongoing challenge especially in elderly patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the ability of comorbidity indices and their combination with clinical parameters in machine learning models to predict mortality and morbidity after RC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 392 patients who underwent open RC, complication and mortality rates were reported. The predictive values of the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity index (aCCI), the Elixhauser Index (EI), the Physical Status Classification System (ASA) and Gagne's combined comorbidity Index (GCI) were evaluated using regression analyses. Various machine learning models (Gaussian naïve bayes, logistic regression, neural net, decision tree, random forest) were additionally investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The aCCI, ASA and GCI showed significant results for the prediction of complications (χ<sup>2</sup> = 8.8, <i>p</i> < 0.01, χ<sup>2</sup> = 15.7, <i>p</i> < 0.01 and χ<sup>2</sup> = 4.6, <i>p</i> = 0.03) and mortality (χ<sup>2</sup> = 21.1, <i>p</i> < 0.01, χ<sup>2</sup> = 25.8, <i>p</i> < 0.01 and χ<sup>2</sup> = 2.4, <i>p</i> = 0.04) after RC while the EI showed no significant prediction. However, areas under receiver characteristic curves (AUROCs) revealed good performance only for the prediction of mortality by the aCCI and ASA (0.81 and 0.78, CGI 0.63) while the prediction of complications was poor (aCCI 0.6, ASA 0.63, CGI 0.58). The combination of ASA, age, body mass index and sex in machine learning models showed a better prediction. Gaussian naïve bayes (0.79) and logistic regression (0.76) showed the best performance using a hold-out test set.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ASA and aCCI show good prediction of mortality after RC but fail predicting complications accurately. Here, the combination of comorbidity indices and clinical parameters in machine learning models seems promising.</p>","PeriodicalId":54217,"journal":{"name":"Bladder Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181714/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comorbidity Scores and Machine Learning Methods Can Improve Risk Assessment in Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Frederik Wessels, Isabelle Bußoff, Sophia Adam, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Manuel Neuberger, Philipp Nuhn, Maurice S Michel, Maximilian C Kriegmair\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/BLC-211640\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pre-operative risk assessment in radical cystectomy (RC) is an ongoing challenge especially in elderly patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the ability of comorbidity indices and their combination with clinical parameters in machine learning models to predict mortality and morbidity after RC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 392 patients who underwent open RC, complication and mortality rates were reported. The predictive values of the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity index (aCCI), the Elixhauser Index (EI), the Physical Status Classification System (ASA) and Gagne's combined comorbidity Index (GCI) were evaluated using regression analyses. Various machine learning models (Gaussian naïve bayes, logistic regression, neural net, decision tree, random forest) were additionally investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The aCCI, ASA and GCI showed significant results for the prediction of complications (χ<sup>2</sup> = 8.8, <i>p</i> < 0.01, χ<sup>2</sup> = 15.7, <i>p</i> < 0.01 and χ<sup>2</sup> = 4.6, <i>p</i> = 0.03) and mortality (χ<sup>2</sup> = 21.1, <i>p</i> < 0.01, χ<sup>2</sup> = 25.8, <i>p</i> < 0.01 and χ<sup>2</sup> = 2.4, <i>p</i> = 0.04) after RC while the EI showed no significant prediction. However, areas under receiver characteristic curves (AUROCs) revealed good performance only for the prediction of mortality by the aCCI and ASA (0.81 and 0.78, CGI 0.63) while the prediction of complications was poor (aCCI 0.6, ASA 0.63, CGI 0.58). The combination of ASA, age, body mass index and sex in machine learning models showed a better prediction. Gaussian naïve bayes (0.79) and logistic regression (0.76) showed the best performance using a hold-out test set.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ASA and aCCI show good prediction of mortality after RC but fail predicting complications accurately. Here, the combination of comorbidity indices and clinical parameters in machine learning models seems promising.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bladder Cancer\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181714/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bladder Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/BLC-211640\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bladder Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/BLC-211640","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:根治性膀胱切除术(RC)的术前风险评估是一项持续的挑战,尤其是在老年患者中。目的:评估机器学习模型中合并症指数及其与临床参数的组合预测RC后死亡率和发病率的能力。方法:报告392例开放性RC患者的并发症和死亡率。使用回归分析评估年龄调整后的Charlson共病指数(aCCI)、Elixhauser指数(EI)、身体状况分类系统(ASA)和Gagne综合共病指数的预测值。此外,还研究了各种机器学习模型(高斯朴素贝叶斯、逻辑回归、神经网络、决策树、随机森林)。结果:aCCI、ASA和GCI在预测并发症方面显示出显著的结果(χ2 = 8.8,p <  0.01,χ2 = 15.7,p <  0.01和χ = 4.6,p = 0.03)和死亡率(χ = 21.1,p <  0.01,χ2 = 25.8,p <  0.01和χ = 2.4,p = 0.04),而EI没有显示出显著的预测。然而,受试者特征曲线下面积(AUROC)仅在aCCI和ASA预测死亡率方面表现良好(0.81和0.78,CGI 0.63),而对并发症的预测较差(aCCI 0.6,ASA 0.63,CGI 0.58)。机器学习模型中ASA、年龄、体重指数和性别的组合显示出更好的预测。高斯朴素贝叶斯(0.79)和逻辑回归(0.76)使用保持测试集显示出最佳性能。结论:ASA和aCCI可以很好地预测RC后的死亡率,但不能准确预测并发症。在这里,机器学习模型中合并症指数和临床参数的组合似乎很有希望。
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
Comorbidity Scores and Machine Learning Methods Can Improve Risk Assessment in Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer.

Background: Pre-operative risk assessment in radical cystectomy (RC) is an ongoing challenge especially in elderly patients.

Objective: To evaluate the ability of comorbidity indices and their combination with clinical parameters in machine learning models to predict mortality and morbidity after RC.

Methods: In 392 patients who underwent open RC, complication and mortality rates were reported. The predictive values of the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity index (aCCI), the Elixhauser Index (EI), the Physical Status Classification System (ASA) and Gagne's combined comorbidity Index (GCI) were evaluated using regression analyses. Various machine learning models (Gaussian naïve bayes, logistic regression, neural net, decision tree, random forest) were additionally investigated.

Results: The aCCI, ASA and GCI showed significant results for the prediction of complications (χ2 = 8.8, p < 0.01, χ2 = 15.7, p < 0.01 and χ2 = 4.6, p = 0.03) and mortality (χ2 = 21.1, p < 0.01, χ2 = 25.8, p < 0.01 and χ2 = 2.4, p = 0.04) after RC while the EI showed no significant prediction. However, areas under receiver characteristic curves (AUROCs) revealed good performance only for the prediction of mortality by the aCCI and ASA (0.81 and 0.78, CGI 0.63) while the prediction of complications was poor (aCCI 0.6, ASA 0.63, CGI 0.58). The combination of ASA, age, body mass index and sex in machine learning models showed a better prediction. Gaussian naïve bayes (0.79) and logistic regression (0.76) showed the best performance using a hold-out test set.

Conclusions: The ASA and aCCI show good prediction of mortality after RC but fail predicting complications accurately. Here, the combination of comorbidity indices and clinical parameters in machine learning models seems promising.

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
Bladder Cancer
Bladder Cancer Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Bladder Cancer is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the epidemiology/etiology, genetics, molecular correlates, pathogenesis, pharmacology, ethics, patient advocacy and survivorship, diagnosis and treatment of tumors of the bladder and upper urinary tract. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research in basic science, translational research and clinical medicine that expedites our fundamental understanding and improves treatment of tumors of the bladder and upper urinary tract.
期刊最新文献
Device-Assisted Therapy in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Effectiveness of Prolonged Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Radical Cystectomy: Preliminary Analysis of the MACS Randomized Clinical Trial Urologists and Advanced Practice Providers Evaluating Hematuria. Factors Influencing Patient Decision-Making in the Treatment of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer The Evolution of Nadofaragene Firadenovec: A Review and the Path Forward
×
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