Combining patient visual timelines with deep learning to predict mortality.
Deep Learning
Electronic Health Records
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Hospital Mortality
/ trends
Hospitalization
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Intensive Care Units
Machine Learning
Male
Middle Aged
Neural Networks, Computer
Patient Admission
/ statistics & numerical data
ROC Curve
Retrospective Studies
Vital Signs
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
18
02
2019
accepted:
19
07
2019
entrez:
1
8
2019
pubmed:
1
8
2019
medline:
5
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Deep learning algorithms have achieved human-equivalent performance in image recognition. However, the majority of clinical data within electronic health records is inherently in a non-image format. Therefore, creating visual representations of clinical data could facilitate using cutting-edge deep learning models for predicting outcomes such as in-hospital mortality, while enabling clinician interpretability. The objective of this study was to develop a framework that first transforms longitudinal patient data into visual timelines and then utilizes deep learning to predict in-hospital mortality. All adult consecutive patient admissions from 2008-2016 at a tertiary care center were included in this retrospective study. Two-dimensional visual representations for each patient were created with clinical variables on one dimension and time on the other. Predictors included vital signs, laboratory results, medications, interventions, nurse examinations, and diagnostic tests collected over the first 48 hours of the hospital stay. These visual timelines were utilized by a convolutional neural network with a recurrent layer model to predict in-hospital mortality. Seventy percent of the cohort was used for model derivation and 30% for independent validation. Of 115,825 hospital admissions, 2,926 (2.5%) suffered in-hospital mortality. Our model predicted in-hospital mortality significantly better than the Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.91 vs. 0.76, P < 0.001) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (AUC: 0.91 vs. 0.57, P < 0.001) in the independent validation set. Class-activation heatmaps were utilized to highlight areas of the picture that were most important for making the prediction, thereby providing clinicians with insight into each individual patient's prediction. We converted longitudinal patient data into visual timelines and applied a deep neural network for predicting in-hospital mortality more accurately than current standard clinical models, while allowing for interpretation. Our framework holds promise for predicting several important outcomes in clinical medicine.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Deep learning algorithms have achieved human-equivalent performance in image recognition. However, the majority of clinical data within electronic health records is inherently in a non-image format. Therefore, creating visual representations of clinical data could facilitate using cutting-edge deep learning models for predicting outcomes such as in-hospital mortality, while enabling clinician interpretability. The objective of this study was to develop a framework that first transforms longitudinal patient data into visual timelines and then utilizes deep learning to predict in-hospital mortality.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
All adult consecutive patient admissions from 2008-2016 at a tertiary care center were included in this retrospective study. Two-dimensional visual representations for each patient were created with clinical variables on one dimension and time on the other. Predictors included vital signs, laboratory results, medications, interventions, nurse examinations, and diagnostic tests collected over the first 48 hours of the hospital stay. These visual timelines were utilized by a convolutional neural network with a recurrent layer model to predict in-hospital mortality. Seventy percent of the cohort was used for model derivation and 30% for independent validation. Of 115,825 hospital admissions, 2,926 (2.5%) suffered in-hospital mortality. Our model predicted in-hospital mortality significantly better than the Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.91 vs. 0.76, P < 0.001) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (AUC: 0.91 vs. 0.57, P < 0.001) in the independent validation set. Class-activation heatmaps were utilized to highlight areas of the picture that were most important for making the prediction, thereby providing clinicians with insight into each individual patient's prediction.
CONCLUSIONS
We converted longitudinal patient data into visual timelines and applied a deep neural network for predicting in-hospital mortality more accurately than current standard clinical models, while allowing for interpretation. Our framework holds promise for predicting several important outcomes in clinical medicine.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31365580
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220640
pii: PONE-D-19-04842
pmc: PMC6668841
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0220640Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K08 HL121080
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr. Churpek is supported by a career development award from the NHLBI (K08 HL121080), an R01 from NIGMS (R01 GM123193), and has a patent pending (ARCD. P0535US.P2) for risk stratification algorithms for hospitalized patients. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials
Références
Arch Intern Med. 2001 Sep 24;161(17):2099-104
pubmed: 11570938
QJM. 2001 Oct;94(10):521-6
pubmed: 11588210
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Sep 15;190(6):649-55
pubmed: 25089847
Nature. 2015 May 28;521(7553):436-44
pubmed: 26017442
Crit Care Med. 2016 Feb;44(2):368-74
pubmed: 26771782
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
JAMA. 2016 Dec 13;316(22):2402-2410
pubmed: 27898976
JMLR Workshop Conf Proc. 2016 Aug;56:301-318
pubmed: 28286600
J Biomed Inform. 2017 May;69:218-229
pubmed: 28410981
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Jan 15;197(2):193-203
pubmed: 28892454
JAMA. 2017 Dec 12;318(22):2199-2210
pubmed: 29234806
JAMA. 2017 Dec 12;318(22):2211-2223
pubmed: 29234807
JAMA. 2018 Jan 2;319(1):19-20
pubmed: 29261830
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2018 Sep;22(5):1589-1604
pubmed: 29989977
NPJ Digit Med. 2018 May 8;1:18
pubmed: 31304302