Machine learning predicts mortality based on analysis of ventilation parameters of critically ill patients: multi-centre validation.
Critical care medicine
ICU
Machine learning
Mechanical ventilation
Risk stratification
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 05 2021
07 05 2021
Historique:
received:
10
12
2020
accepted:
26
04
2021
entrez:
8
5
2021
pubmed:
9
5
2021
medline:
8
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mechanical Ventilation (MV) is a complex and central treatment process in the care of critically ill patients. It influences acid-base balance and can also cause prognostically relevant biotrauma by generating forces and liberating reactive oxygen species, negatively affecting outcomes. In this work we evaluate the use of a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) modelling to predict outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients, using standard mechanical ventilation parameters. We performed our analysis on VENTILA dataset, an observational, prospective, international, multi-centre study, performed to investigate the effect of baseline characteristics and management changes over time on the all-cause mortality rate in mechanically ventilated patients in ICU. Our cohort includes 12,596 adult patients older than 18, associated with 12,755 distinct admissions in ICUs across 37 countries and receiving invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation. We carry out four different analysis. Initially we select typical mechanical ventilation parameters and evaluate the machine learning model on both, the overall cohort and a subgroup of patients admitted with respiratory disorders. Furthermore, we carry out sensitivity analysis to evaluate whether inclusion of variables related to the function of other organs, improve the predictive performance of the model for both the overall cohort as well as the subgroup of patients with respiratory disorders. Predictive performance of RNN-based model was higher with Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC) of 0.72 (± 0.01) and Average Precision (AP) of 0.57 (± 0.01) in comparison to RF and LR for the overall patient dataset. Higher predictive performance was recorded in the subgroup of patients admitted with respiratory disorders with AUC of 0.75 (± 0.02) and AP of 0.65 (± 0.03). Inclusion of function of other organs further improved the performance to AUC of 0.79 (± 0.01) and AP 0.68 (± 0.02) for the overall patient dataset and AUC of 0.79 (± 0.01) and AP 0.72 (± 0.02) for the subgroup with respiratory disorders. The RNN-based model demonstrated better performance than RF and LR in patients in mechanical ventilation and its subgroup admitted with respiratory disorders. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate whether it impacts decision-making and patient outcomes. NCT02731898 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02731898 ), prospectively registered on April 8, 2016.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Mechanical Ventilation (MV) is a complex and central treatment process in the care of critically ill patients. It influences acid-base balance and can also cause prognostically relevant biotrauma by generating forces and liberating reactive oxygen species, negatively affecting outcomes. In this work we evaluate the use of a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) modelling to predict outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients, using standard mechanical ventilation parameters.
METHODS
We performed our analysis on VENTILA dataset, an observational, prospective, international, multi-centre study, performed to investigate the effect of baseline characteristics and management changes over time on the all-cause mortality rate in mechanically ventilated patients in ICU. Our cohort includes 12,596 adult patients older than 18, associated with 12,755 distinct admissions in ICUs across 37 countries and receiving invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation. We carry out four different analysis. Initially we select typical mechanical ventilation parameters and evaluate the machine learning model on both, the overall cohort and a subgroup of patients admitted with respiratory disorders. Furthermore, we carry out sensitivity analysis to evaluate whether inclusion of variables related to the function of other organs, improve the predictive performance of the model for both the overall cohort as well as the subgroup of patients with respiratory disorders.
RESULTS
Predictive performance of RNN-based model was higher with Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC) of 0.72 (± 0.01) and Average Precision (AP) of 0.57 (± 0.01) in comparison to RF and LR for the overall patient dataset. Higher predictive performance was recorded in the subgroup of patients admitted with respiratory disorders with AUC of 0.75 (± 0.02) and AP of 0.65 (± 0.03). Inclusion of function of other organs further improved the performance to AUC of 0.79 (± 0.01) and AP 0.68 (± 0.02) for the overall patient dataset and AUC of 0.79 (± 0.01) and AP 0.72 (± 0.02) for the subgroup with respiratory disorders.
CONCLUSION
The RNN-based model demonstrated better performance than RF and LR in patients in mechanical ventilation and its subgroup admitted with respiratory disorders. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate whether it impacts decision-making and patient outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
NCT02731898 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02731898 ), prospectively registered on April 8, 2016.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33962603
doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01506-w
pii: 10.1186/s12911-021-01506-w
pmc: PMC8102841
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02731898']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
152Références
Respir Res. 2020 Feb 7;21(1):45
pubmed: 32033607
Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2021 Jan-Feb;45(1):3-13
pubmed: 32723483
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015 Jul;30(7):1104-11
pubmed: 25213433
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1975 Oct 20;405(2):442-51
pubmed: 1180967
JAMA. 2002 Jan 16;287(3):345-55
pubmed: 11790214
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 2;15(7):e0235424
pubmed: 32614874
Internist (Berl). 2008 Jun;49(6):688-93
pubmed: 18511988
JAMA. 2012 Jun 20;307(23):2526-33
pubmed: 22797452
Eur J Intern Med. 2018 Feb;48:e13-e14
pubmed: 28651747
Intensive Care Med. 2019 May;45(5):712-714
pubmed: 30725133
Crit Care Med. 2010 Jan;38(1):59-64
pubmed: 19633539
Crit Care Med. 2015 Oct;43(10):2155-63
pubmed: 26181219
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2020 Jun 16;270:73-77
pubmed: 32570349
Int J Med Inform. 2019 May;125:55-61
pubmed: 30914181
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008 Jan 15;177(2):170-7
pubmed: 17962636
BMC Genomics. 2020 Jan 2;21(1):6
pubmed: 31898477
Crit Care. 2019 Aug 22;23(1):284
pubmed: 31439010
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 8;13(6):e0198669
pubmed: 29883469
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 14;13(11):e0206862
pubmed: 30427913
JAMA. 2012 Oct 24;308(16):1651-9
pubmed: 23093163
Neural Comput. 1997 Nov 15;9(8):1735-80
pubmed: 9377276
Int J Med Inform. 2021 Jan;145:104312
pubmed: 33126059
Pulm Ther. 2020 Jun;6(1):67-77
pubmed: 32048244
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Min Knowl Discov. 2019 Jul-Aug;9(4):e1312
pubmed: 32089788
Crit Care Med. 2018 Feb;46(2):300-306
pubmed: 29135500
N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 19;372(8):747-55
pubmed: 25693014
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 20;8(1):17116
pubmed: 30459331
J Surg Res. 2018 Aug;228:179-187
pubmed: 29907209
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000 Oct;89(4):1645-55
pubmed: 11007607