Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients.
delirium
machine learning
model prediction
post-operative
statistical learning
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
26
06
2019
accepted:
11
09
2020
pubmed:
21
10
2020
medline:
22
5
2021
entrez:
20
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Our objective was to assess the performance of machine learning methods to predict post-operative delirium using a prospective clinical cohort. We analyzed data from an observational cohort study of 560 older adults (≥ 70 years) without dementia undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery. Post-operative delirium was determined by the Confusion Assessment Method supplemented by a medical chart review (N = 134, 24%). Five machine learning algorithms and a standard stepwise logistic regression model were developed in a training sample (80% of participants) and evaluated in the remaining hold-out testing sample. We evaluated three overlapping feature sets, restricted to variables that are readily available or minimally burdensome to collect in clinical settings, including interview and medical record data. A large feature set included 71 potential predictors. A smaller set of 18 features was selected by an expert panel using a consensus process, and this smaller feature set was considered with and without a measure of pre-operative mental status. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was higher in the large feature set conditions (range of AUC, 0.62-0.71 across algorithms) versus the selected feature set conditions (AUC range, 0.53-0.57). The restricted feature set with mental status had intermediate AUC values (range, 0.53-0.68). In the full feature set condition, algorithms such as gradient boosting, cross-validated logistic regression, and neural network (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.83) were comparable with a model developed using traditional stepwise logistic regression (AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82). Calibration for all models and feature sets was poor. We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. Delirium proved to be a phenotype that was difficult to predict with appreciable accuracy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Our objective was to assess the performance of machine learning methods to predict post-operative delirium using a prospective clinical cohort.
METHODS
We analyzed data from an observational cohort study of 560 older adults (≥ 70 years) without dementia undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery. Post-operative delirium was determined by the Confusion Assessment Method supplemented by a medical chart review (N = 134, 24%). Five machine learning algorithms and a standard stepwise logistic regression model were developed in a training sample (80% of participants) and evaluated in the remaining hold-out testing sample. We evaluated three overlapping feature sets, restricted to variables that are readily available or minimally burdensome to collect in clinical settings, including interview and medical record data. A large feature set included 71 potential predictors. A smaller set of 18 features was selected by an expert panel using a consensus process, and this smaller feature set was considered with and without a measure of pre-operative mental status.
RESULTS
The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was higher in the large feature set conditions (range of AUC, 0.62-0.71 across algorithms) versus the selected feature set conditions (AUC range, 0.53-0.57). The restricted feature set with mental status had intermediate AUC values (range, 0.53-0.68). In the full feature set condition, algorithms such as gradient boosting, cross-validated logistic regression, and neural network (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.83) were comparable with a model developed using traditional stepwise logistic regression (AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82). Calibration for all models and feature sets was poor.
CONCLUSIONS
We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. Delirium proved to be a phenotype that was difficult to predict with appreciable accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33078300
doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7
pii: 10.1007/s11606-020-06238-7
pmc: PMC7878663
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
265-273Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R03AG061582
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : T32AG023480
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R03 AG061582
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K24 AG035075
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K07 AG041835
Pays : United States
Organisme : Alzheimer's Association
ID : AARF-18-560786
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R24 AG054259
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K24AG035075
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : T32 AG023480
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AG044518
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01AG03061
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K01AG057836
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K07AG041835
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K01 AG057836
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P01AG031720
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P01 AG031720
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01AG04451
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AG030618
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R24AG054259
Pays : United States
Investigateurs
Steven Arnold
(S)
Bradford Dickerson
(B)
Tamara Fong
(T)
Richard Jones
(R)
Towia Libermann
(T)
Thomas Travison
(T)
Simon T Dillon
(ST)
Jacob Hooker
(J)
Tammy Hshieh
(T)
Long Ngo
(L)
Hasan Otu
(H)
Annie Racine
(A)
Alexandra Touroutoglou
(A)
Sarinnapha Vasunilashorn
(S)
Douglas Ayres
(D)
Gregory Brick
(G)
Antonia Chen
(A)
Robert Davis
(R)
Jacob Drew
(J)
Richard Iorio
(R)
Fulton Kornack
(F)
Michael Weaver
(M)
Anthony Webber
(A)
Richard Wilk
(R)
David Shaff
(D)
Brett Armstrong
(B)
Angelee Banda
(A)
Sylvie Bertrand
(S)
Madeline D'Aquila
(M)
Jacqueline Gallagher
(J)
Baileigh Hightower
(B)
Shannon Malloy
(S)
Jacqueline Nee
(J)
Chloe Nobuhara
(C)
Abigail Overstreet
(A)
Bianca Trombetta
(B)
Baileigh Hightower
(B)
David Urick
(D)
Guoquan Xu
(G)
Grae Arabasz
(G)
Michael Brickhouse
(M)
Regan Butterfield
(R)
Shirley Hsu
(S)
Sara Makaretz
(S)
Judit Sore
(J)
Fan Chen
(F)
Sabrina Carretie
(S)
Ted Gruen
(T)
Katherine Tasker
(K)
Références
Ann Intern Med. 1990 Dec 15;113(12):941-8
pubmed: 2240918
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;236:32-39
pubmed: 28508776
JAMA. 2010 Aug 18;304(7):779-86
pubmed: 20716741
Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Jul;49(7):775-83
pubmed: 22197051
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019 Nov 13;74(12):1901-1902
pubmed: 30903146
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Dec;62(12):2383-90
pubmed: 25516034
Alzheimers Dement. 2018 May;14(5):590-600
pubmed: 29190460
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Aug;14(8):823-832
pubmed: 26139023
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017 Nov 9;72(12):1697-1702
pubmed: 28329149
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2006 Sep;7(7):412-5
pubmed: 16979083
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Feb;53(2):312-8
pubmed: 15673358
Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Aug;38(4):915-23
pubmed: 27177868
Law Hum Behav. 2005 Oct;29(5):615-20
pubmed: 16254746
Ann Surg. 2017 Apr;265(4):647-653
pubmed: 27501176
J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
pubmed: 20808728
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1992 Jan-Mar;5(1):14-21
pubmed: 1571069
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Dec;63(12):2463-2471
pubmed: 26662213
JAMA. 1994 Jan 12;271(2):134-9
pubmed: 8264068
Methods Mol Biol. 2008;458:15-23
pubmed: 19065803
Circulation. 2009 Jan 20;119(2):229-36
pubmed: 19118253
BMJ. 2012 Feb 09;344:e420
pubmed: 22323509
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012 Nov;13(9):818.e1-10
pubmed: 22999782
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 12;377(15):1456-1466
pubmed: 29020579
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;110:12-22
pubmed: 30763612
J Med Syst. 2018 Nov 14;42(12):261
pubmed: 30430256
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375(13):1216-9
pubmed: 27682033
Physiol Meas. 2018 Mar 27;39(3):035004
pubmed: 29376502
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Mar;62(3):518-24
pubmed: 24512042
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 May;56(5):823-30
pubmed: 18384586
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Aug 3;1(4):e181405
pubmed: 30646122
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Mar 1;74(3):244-251
pubmed: 28114436
Brain. 2012 Sep;135(Pt 9):2809-16
pubmed: 22879644
Ann Intern Med. 1993 Sep 15;119(6):474-81
pubmed: 8357112
Alzheimers Dement. 2016 Jul;12(7):766-75
pubmed: 27103261
JAMA Surg. 2015 Dec;150(12):1134-40
pubmed: 26352694
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2016 Nov;29(6):320-327
pubmed: 27647793
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Aug 3;1(4):e181018
pubmed: 30646095
Int J Epidemiol. 2021 Jan 23;49(6):2065-2073
pubmed: 31722368
J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;61(1):347-358
pubmed: 29171992
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 28;8(4):e019223
pubmed: 29705752
J Clin Psychiatry. 1987 Aug;48(8):314-8
pubmed: 3611032
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jul 5;367(1):30-9
pubmed: 22762316
Proc IEEE Int Symp Bioinformatics Bioeng. 2017 Oct;2017:568-573
pubmed: 30393788