Machine Learning to Predict Mortality and Critical Events in a Cohort of Patients With COVID-19 in New York City: Model Development and Validation.
Acute Kidney Injury
/ epidemiology
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Betacoronavirus
COVID-19
Cohort Studies
Coronavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Electronic Health Records
Female
Hospital Mortality
Hospitalization
/ statistics & numerical data
Hospitals
Humans
Machine Learning
/ standards
Male
Middle Aged
New York City
/ epidemiology
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ diagnosis
Prognosis
ROC Curve
Risk Assessment
/ methods
SARS-CoV-2
Young Adult
COVID-19
EHR
TRIPOD
clinical informatics
cohort
electronic health record
hospital
machine learning
mortality
performance
prediction
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 11 2020
06 11 2020
Historique:
received:
01
09
2020
accepted:
02
10
2020
revised:
02
10
2020
pubmed:
8
10
2020
medline:
25
11
2020
entrez:
7
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
COVID-19 has infected millions of people worldwide and is responsible for several hundred thousand fatalities. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated thoughtful resource allocation and early identification of high-risk patients. However, effective methods to meet these needs are lacking. The aims of this study were to analyze the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City; to develop machine learning models for making predictions about the hospital course of the patients over clinically meaningful time horizons based on patient characteristics at admission; and to assess the performance of these models at multiple hospitals and time points. We used Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and baseline comparator models to predict in-hospital mortality and critical events at time windows of 3, 5, 7, and 10 days from admission. Our study population included harmonized EHR data from five hospitals in New York City for 4098 COVID-19-positive patients admitted from March 15 to May 22, 2020. The models were first trained on patients from a single hospital (n=1514) before or on May 1, externally validated on patients from four other hospitals (n=2201) before or on May 1, and prospectively validated on all patients after May 1 (n=383). Finally, we established model interpretability to identify and rank variables that drive model predictions. Upon cross-validation, the XGBoost classifier outperformed baseline models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for mortality of 0.89 at 3 days, 0.85 at 5 and 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days. XGBoost also performed well for critical event prediction, with an AUC-ROC of 0.80 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. In external validation, XGBoost achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.88 at 3 days, 0.86 at 5 days, 0.86 at 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days for mortality prediction. Similarly, the unimputed XGBoost model achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.78 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. Trends in performance on prospective validation sets were similar. At 7 days, acute kidney injury on admission, elevated LDH, tachypnea, and hyperglycemia were the strongest drivers of critical event prediction, while higher age, anion gap, and C-reactive protein were the strongest drivers of mortality prediction. We externally and prospectively trained and validated machine learning models for mortality and critical events for patients with COVID-19 at different time horizons. These models identified at-risk patients and uncovered underlying relationships that predicted outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 has infected millions of people worldwide and is responsible for several hundred thousand fatalities. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated thoughtful resource allocation and early identification of high-risk patients. However, effective methods to meet these needs are lacking.
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this study were to analyze the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City; to develop machine learning models for making predictions about the hospital course of the patients over clinically meaningful time horizons based on patient characteristics at admission; and to assess the performance of these models at multiple hospitals and time points.
METHODS
We used Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and baseline comparator models to predict in-hospital mortality and critical events at time windows of 3, 5, 7, and 10 days from admission. Our study population included harmonized EHR data from five hospitals in New York City for 4098 COVID-19-positive patients admitted from March 15 to May 22, 2020. The models were first trained on patients from a single hospital (n=1514) before or on May 1, externally validated on patients from four other hospitals (n=2201) before or on May 1, and prospectively validated on all patients after May 1 (n=383). Finally, we established model interpretability to identify and rank variables that drive model predictions.
RESULTS
Upon cross-validation, the XGBoost classifier outperformed baseline models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for mortality of 0.89 at 3 days, 0.85 at 5 and 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days. XGBoost also performed well for critical event prediction, with an AUC-ROC of 0.80 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. In external validation, XGBoost achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.88 at 3 days, 0.86 at 5 days, 0.86 at 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days for mortality prediction. Similarly, the unimputed XGBoost model achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.78 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. Trends in performance on prospective validation sets were similar. At 7 days, acute kidney injury on admission, elevated LDH, tachypnea, and hyperglycemia were the strongest drivers of critical event prediction, while higher age, anion gap, and C-reactive protein were the strongest drivers of mortality prediction.
CONCLUSIONS
We externally and prospectively trained and validated machine learning models for mortality and critical events for patients with COVID-19 at different time horizons. These models identified at-risk patients and uncovered underlying relationships that predicted outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33027032
pii: v22i11e24018
doi: 10.2196/24018
pmc: PMC7652593
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e24018Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001433
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
©Akhil Vaid, Sulaiman Somani, Adam J Russak, Jessica K De Freitas, Fayzan F Chaudhry, Ishan Paranjpe, Kipp W Johnson, Samuel J Lee, Riccardo Miotto, Felix Richter, Shan Zhao, Noam D Beckmann, Nidhi Naik, Arash Kia, Prem Timsina, Anuradha Lala, Manish Paranjpe, Eddye Golden, Matteo Danieletto, Manbir Singh, Dara Meyer, Paul F O'Reilly, Laura Huckins, Patricia Kovatch, Joseph Finkelstein, Robert M. Freeman, Edgar Argulian, Andrew Kasarskis, Bethany Percha, Judith A Aberg, Emilia Bagiella, Carol R Horowitz, Barbara Murphy, Eric J Nestler, Eric E Schadt, Judy H Cho, Carlos Cordon-Cardo, Valentin Fuster, Dennis S Charney, David L Reich, Erwin P Bottinger, Matthew A Levin, Jagat Narula, Zahi A Fayad, Allan C Just, Alexander W Charney, Girish N Nadkarni, Benjamin S Glicksberg. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 06.11.2020.
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 4;76(5):533-546
pubmed: 32517963
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2079-2088
pubmed: 32361723
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1708-1720
pubmed: 32109013
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 31;71(11):2933-2938
pubmed: 32594164
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):846-848
pubmed: 32125452
J Transl Med. 2020 May 20;18(1):206
pubmed: 32434518
BMJ. 2020 Apr 7;369:m1328
pubmed: 32265220
Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 15;11(1):3543
pubmed: 32669540
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1775-1776
pubmed: 32203977
BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Jan 25;8:25
pubmed: 17254353
Thromb Res. 2020 Jul;191:145-147
pubmed: 32291094
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Apr;8(4):e21
pubmed: 32171062
Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(10):
pubmed: 32183930
J Med Syst. 2020 Mar 18;44(5):93
pubmed: 32189081
Eur Respir J. 1996 Aug;9(8):1736-42
pubmed: 8866602
Lancet. 2020 May 9;395(10235):1517-1520
pubmed: 32311318
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 9;15(12):e0242953
pubmed: 33296357
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 May;31(5):1003-1008
pubmed: 32270559
Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2020 May 15;19(1):18
pubmed: 32414383
Nat Mach Intell. 2020 Jan;2(1):56-67
pubmed: 32607472
Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 2020 Jun;81(2-3):101-109
pubmed: 32413342
BMC Med. 2015 Jan 06;13:1
pubmed: 25563062
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021 Jan;32(1):151-160
pubmed: 32883700
Am J Hematol. 2020 Jul;95(7):834-847
pubmed: 32282949
PLoS One. 2020 May 18;15(5):e0233328
pubmed: 32421703
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jun;127:104370
pubmed: 32344321
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):833-840
pubmed: 32296824
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jul;8(7):738-742
pubmed: 32416769
JAMA. 2020 Apr 14;323(14):1335
pubmed: 32181795
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 May;13(5):e006766
pubmed: 32298145
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 1;5(7):802-810
pubmed: 32211816
BMJ. 2020 May 22;369:m1966
pubmed: 32444366
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Jun 25;58(7):1021-1028
pubmed: 32286245
Diabetes Metab J. 2020 Apr;44(2):349-353
pubmed: 32347027
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 6;22(10):e21439
pubmed: 32976111
Sci China Life Sci. 2020 Mar;63(3):364-374
pubmed: 32048163
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Oct;2(10):e516-e525
pubmed: 32984797
Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1037-1040
pubmed: 32393804
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):1902-1914
pubmed: 32293716
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 23;382(17):e38
pubmed: 32268022
J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 03;9(6):
pubmed: 32503180