Temporal Pattern Detection to Predict Adverse Events in Critical Care: Case Study With Acute Kidney Injury.
acute kidney injury
adverse effects
automated pattern recognition
supervised machine learning
Journal
JMIR medical informatics
ISSN: 2291-9694
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Inform
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645109
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Mar 2020
17 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
04
04
2019
accepted:
22
01
2020
revised:
23
11
2019
entrez:
18
3
2020
pubmed:
18
3
2020
medline:
18
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
More than 20% of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) develop an adverse event (AE). No previous study has leveraged patients' data to extract the temporal features using their structural temporal patterns, that is, trends. This study aimed to improve AE prediction methods by using structural temporal pattern detection that captures global and local temporal trends and to demonstrate these improvements in the detection of acute kidney injury (AKI). Using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care dataset, containing 22,542 patients, we extracted both global and local trends using structural pattern detection methods to predict AKI (ie, binary prediction). Classifiers were built on 17 input features consisting of vital signs and laboratory test results using state-of-the-art models; the optimal classifier was selected for comparisons with previous approaches. The classifier with structural pattern detection features was compared with two baseline classifiers that used different temporal feature extraction approaches commonly used in the literature: (1) symbolic temporal pattern detection, which is the most common approach for multivariate time series classification; and (2) the last recorded value before the prediction point, which is the most common approach to extract temporal data in the AKI prediction literature. Moreover, we assessed the individual contribution of global and local trends. Classifier performance was measured in terms of accuracy (primary outcome), area under the curve, and F-measure. For all experiments, we employed 20-fold cross-validation. Random forest was the best classifier using structural temporal pattern detection. The accuracy of the classifier with local and global trend features was significantly higher than that while using symbolic temporal pattern detection and the last recorded value (81.3% vs 70.6% vs 58.1%; P<.001). Excluding local or global features reduced the accuracy to 74.4% or 78.1%, respectively (P<.001). Classifiers using features obtained from structural temporal pattern detection significantly improved the prediction of AKI onset in ICU patients over two baselines based on common previous approaches. The proposed method is a generalizable approach to predict AEs in critical care that may be used to help clinicians intervene in a timely manner to prevent or mitigate AEs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
More than 20% of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) develop an adverse event (AE). No previous study has leveraged patients' data to extract the temporal features using their structural temporal patterns, that is, trends.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to improve AE prediction methods by using structural temporal pattern detection that captures global and local temporal trends and to demonstrate these improvements in the detection of acute kidney injury (AKI).
METHODS
METHODS
Using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care dataset, containing 22,542 patients, we extracted both global and local trends using structural pattern detection methods to predict AKI (ie, binary prediction). Classifiers were built on 17 input features consisting of vital signs and laboratory test results using state-of-the-art models; the optimal classifier was selected for comparisons with previous approaches. The classifier with structural pattern detection features was compared with two baseline classifiers that used different temporal feature extraction approaches commonly used in the literature: (1) symbolic temporal pattern detection, which is the most common approach for multivariate time series classification; and (2) the last recorded value before the prediction point, which is the most common approach to extract temporal data in the AKI prediction literature. Moreover, we assessed the individual contribution of global and local trends. Classifier performance was measured in terms of accuracy (primary outcome), area under the curve, and F-measure. For all experiments, we employed 20-fold cross-validation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Random forest was the best classifier using structural temporal pattern detection. The accuracy of the classifier with local and global trend features was significantly higher than that while using symbolic temporal pattern detection and the last recorded value (81.3% vs 70.6% vs 58.1%; P<.001). Excluding local or global features reduced the accuracy to 74.4% or 78.1%, respectively (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Classifiers using features obtained from structural temporal pattern detection significantly improved the prediction of AKI onset in ICU patients over two baselines based on common previous approaches. The proposed method is a generalizable approach to predict AEs in critical care that may be used to help clinicians intervene in a timely manner to prevent or mitigate AEs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32181753
pii: v8i3e14272
doi: 10.2196/14272
pmc: PMC7109618
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e14272Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002538
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
©Mohammad Amin Morid, Olivia R Liu Sheng, Guilherme Del Fiol, Julio C Facelli, Bruce E Bray, Samir Abdelrahman. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (http://medinform.jmir.org), 17.03.2020.
Références
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 24;10(8):e0136230
pubmed: 26302370
Int J Surg. 2011;9(1):55-8
pubmed: 20817049
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 May;94(5):783-792
pubmed: 31054606
Psychol Rev. 1987 Apr;94(2):115-147
pubmed: 3575582
Crit Care. 2007;11(2):R31
pubmed: 17331245
Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Jun;65(6):860-9
pubmed: 25488106
Artif Intell Med. 2007 Sep;41(1):1-12
pubmed: 17698331
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Mar;91:103113
pubmed: 30738188
J Burn Care Res. 2012 Mar-Apr;33(2):242-51
pubmed: 22370901
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Mar 29;16:39
pubmed: 27025458
Kidney Int. 2008 Mar;73(5):538-46
pubmed: 18160961
J Biomed Inform. 2015 Aug;56:87-93
pubmed: 25989018
BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014 Feb 04;2(2):
pubmed: 26734238
Ann Intensive Care. 2012 Nov 22;2(1):47
pubmed: 23174137
J Biomed Inform. 2017 Nov;75:83-95
pubmed: 28987378
Ann Surg. 2017 May;265(5):910-915
pubmed: 27192350
J Biomed Inform. 2016 Apr;60:14-22
pubmed: 26774763
Am J Kidney Dis. 2012 Mar;59(3):382-9
pubmed: 22206745
J Biomed Inform. 2015 Feb;53:220-8
pubmed: 25460205
Nat Neurosci. 2014 Mar;17(3):455-62
pubmed: 24464044
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Mar;39(3):414-9
pubmed: 23223822
ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol. 2013 Sep;4(4):
pubmed: 25309815
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Feb;42(1):11-21
pubmed: 18721900
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009 Nov 14;2009:452-6
pubmed: 20351898
BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Jan 25;8:25
pubmed: 17254353
Am J Prev Med. 2014 Oct;47(4):498-504
pubmed: 25092122
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018 Apr 16;2017:565-574
pubmed: 29854121
Sci Data. 2016 May 24;3:160035
pubmed: 27219127
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2016 Feb 26;3:11
pubmed: 26925247
BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Dec 17;8:259
pubmed: 19091089
KDD. 2012;2012:280-288
pubmed: 25937993
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2015 Jan 30;2:3
pubmed: 25780626
Crit Care Med. 2007 Nov;35(11):2479-83
pubmed: 17828035
IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2017 May-Jun;14(3):555-563
pubmed: 27429447