Development and Performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Result Forecast Model (PERFORM) for Computed Tomography Clinical Decision Support.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 08 2019
02 08 2019
Historique:
entrez:
8
8
2019
pubmed:
8
8
2019
medline:
12
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening clinical problem, and computed tomographic imaging is the standard for diagnosis. Clinical decision support rules based on PE risk-scoring models have been developed to compute pretest probability but are underused and tend to underperform in practice, leading to persistent overuse of CT imaging for PE. To develop a machine learning model to generate a patient-specific risk score for PE by analyzing longitudinal clinical data as clinical decision support for patients referred for CT imaging for PE. In this diagnostic study, the proposed workflow for the machine learning model, the Pulmonary Embolism Result Forecast Model (PERFORM), transforms raw electronic medical record (EMR) data into temporal feature vectors and develops a decision analytical model targeted toward adult patients referred for CT imaging for PE. The model was tested on holdout patient EMR data from 2 large, academic medical practices. A total of 3397 annotated CT imaging examinations for PE from 3214 unique patients seen at Stanford University hospitals and clinics were used for training and validation. The models were externally validated on 240 unique patients seen at Duke University Medical Center. The comparison with clinical scoring systems was done on randomly selected 100 outpatient samples from Stanford University hospitals and clinics and 101 outpatient samples from Duke University Medical Center. Prediction performance of diagnosing acute PE was evaluated using ElasticNet, artificial neural networks, and other machine learning approaches on holdout data sets from both institutions, and performance of models was measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Of the 3214 patients included in the study, 1704 (53.0%) were women from Stanford University hospitals and clinics; mean (SD) age was 60.53 (19.43) years. The 240 patients from Duke University Medical Center used for validation included 132 women (55.0%); mean (SD) age was 70.2 (14.2) years. In the samples for clinical scoring system comparisons, the 100 outpatients from Stanford University hospitals and clinics included 67 women (67.0%); mean (SD) age was 57.74 (19.87) years, and the 101 patients from Duke University Medical Center included 59 women (58.4%); mean (SD) age was 73.06 (15.3) years. The best-performing model achieved an AUROC performance of predicting a positive PE study of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.91) on intrainstitutional holdout data with an AUROC of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.72) on an external data set from Duke University Medical Center; superior AUROC performance and cross-institutional generalization of the model of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.87) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.82), respectively, were noted on holdout outpatient populations from both intrainstitutional and extrainstitutional data. The machine learning model, PERFORM, may consider multitudes of applicable patient-specific risk factors and dependencies to arrive at a PE risk prediction that generalizes to new population distributions. This approach might be used as an automated clinical decision-support tool for patients referred for CT PE imaging to improve CT use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31390040
pii: 2747483
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8719
pmc: PMC6686780
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e198719Subventions
Organisme : NLM NIH HHS
ID : R01 LM012966
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR003142
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001085
Pays : United States
Références
Am J Med. 2002 Sep;113(4):269-75
pubmed: 12361811
N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr 28;352(17):1760-8
pubmed: 15858185
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Feb 7;144(3):165-71
pubmed: 16461960
Am J Public Health. 1992 Feb;82(2):243-8
pubmed: 1739155
J Thromb Haemost. 2008 Jan;6(1):40-4
pubmed: 17973649
J Thromb Haemost. 2008 Sep;6(9):1468-73
pubmed: 18627443
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jun;192(6):1581-5
pubmed: 19457821
Drug Discov Today. 2011 Jul;16(13-14):594-9
pubmed: 21624499
Chest. 2012 Sep;142(3):697-703
pubmed: 22383664
Thromb Res. 2012 May;129(5):e189-93
pubmed: 22424852
J Thromb Haemost. 2012 Jul;10(7):1276-90
pubmed: 22498033
Nat Rev Genet. 2012 May 02;13(6):395-405
pubmed: 22549152
J Thromb Haemost. 2012 Jul;10(7):1291-6
pubmed: 22568451
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Jul 9;172(13):1028-32
pubmed: 22664742
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Aug;62(2):117-124.e2
pubmed: 23433653
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Mar-Apr;21(2):272-9
pubmed: 24076748
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Dec;35(12):2248-53
pubmed: 25104287
Science. 2015 Jul 17;349(6245):255-60
pubmed: 26185243
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Oct 1;192(7):881-91
pubmed: 26426785
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Jun;67(6):693-701.e3
pubmed: 26747217
Sci Rep. 2016 May 17;6:26094
pubmed: 27185194
Emerg Med J. 2016 Oct;33(10):696-701
pubmed: 27287004
Ann Thorac Med. 2016 Oct-Dec;11(4):254-260
pubmed: 27803751
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Mar;208(3):495-504
pubmed: 27897042
Eur J Emerg Med. 2018 Jun;25(3):185-190
pubmed: 28002070
Radiology. 2017 Apr;283(1):10-13
pubmed: 28318445
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 29;12(8):e0184219
pubmed: 28850591
Radiographics. 2017 Nov-Dec;37(7):2113-2131
pubmed: 29131760
J Biomed Inform. 2018 Jan;77:11-20
pubmed: 29175548
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Mar 1;178(3):412-413
pubmed: 29309487
Artif Intell Med. 2019 Jun;97:79-88
pubmed: 30477892
JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):245-246
pubmed: 30615023
Postgrad Med J. 2019 Aug;95(1126):420-424
pubmed: 30665902
JAMA. 1996 Feb 28;275(8):641-2
pubmed: 8594248