Disease-Course Adapting Machine Learning Prognostication Models in Elderly Patients Critically Ill With COVID-19: Multicenter Cohort Study With External Validation.
COVID-19
clinical informatics
elderly population
machine learning
machine-based learning
outcome prediction
pandemic
patient data
prediction models
Journal
JMIR medical informatics
ISSN: 2291-9694
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Inform
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645109
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Mar 2022
31 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
16
08
2021
accepted:
04
12
2021
revised:
22
10
2021
pubmed:
1
2
2022
medline:
1
2
2022
entrez:
31
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 is challenging health care systems globally. The disease disproportionately affects the elderly population, both in terms of disease severity and mortality risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate machine learning-based prognostication models for critically ill elderly COVID-19 patients, which dynamically incorporated multifaceted clinical information on evolution of the disease. This multicenter cohort study (COVIP study) obtained patient data from 151 intensive care units (ICUs) from 26 countries. Different models based on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB) were derived as baseline models that included admission variables only. We subsequently included clinical events and time-to-event as additional variables to derive the final models using the same algorithms and compared their performance with that of the baseline group. Furthermore, we derived baseline and final models on a European patient cohort, which were externally validated on a non-European cohort that included Asian, African, and US patients. In total, 1432 elderly (≥70 years old) COVID-19-positive patients admitted to an ICU were included for analysis. Of these, 809 (56.49%) patients survived up to 30 days after admission. The average length of stay was 21.6 (SD 18.2) days. Final models that incorporated clinical events and time-to-event information provided superior performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81; 95% CI 0.804-0.811), with respect to both the baseline models that used admission variables only and conventional ICU prediction models (SOFA score, P<.001). The average precision increased from 0.65 (95% CI 0.650-0.655) to 0.77 (95% CI 0.759-0.770). Integrating important clinical events and time-to-event information led to a superior accuracy of 30-day mortality prediction compared with models based on the admission information and conventional ICU prediction models. This study shows that machine-learning models provide additional information and may support complex decision-making in critically ill elderly COVID-19 patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04321265; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04321265.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 is challenging health care systems globally. The disease disproportionately affects the elderly population, both in terms of disease severity and mortality risk.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate machine learning-based prognostication models for critically ill elderly COVID-19 patients, which dynamically incorporated multifaceted clinical information on evolution of the disease.
METHODS
METHODS
This multicenter cohort study (COVIP study) obtained patient data from 151 intensive care units (ICUs) from 26 countries. Different models based on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB) were derived as baseline models that included admission variables only. We subsequently included clinical events and time-to-event as additional variables to derive the final models using the same algorithms and compared their performance with that of the baseline group. Furthermore, we derived baseline and final models on a European patient cohort, which were externally validated on a non-European cohort that included Asian, African, and US patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 1432 elderly (≥70 years old) COVID-19-positive patients admitted to an ICU were included for analysis. Of these, 809 (56.49%) patients survived up to 30 days after admission. The average length of stay was 21.6 (SD 18.2) days. Final models that incorporated clinical events and time-to-event information provided superior performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81; 95% CI 0.804-0.811), with respect to both the baseline models that used admission variables only and conventional ICU prediction models (SOFA score, P<.001). The average precision increased from 0.65 (95% CI 0.650-0.655) to 0.77 (95% CI 0.759-0.770).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Integrating important clinical events and time-to-event information led to a superior accuracy of 30-day mortality prediction compared with models based on the admission information and conventional ICU prediction models. This study shows that machine-learning models provide additional information and may support complex decision-making in critically ill elderly COVID-19 patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04321265; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04321265.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35099394
pii: v10i3e32949
doi: 10.2196/32949
pmc: PMC9015783
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04321265']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e32949Informations de copyright
©Christian Jung, Behrooz Mamandipoor, Jesper Fjølner, Raphael Romano Bruno, Bernhard Wernly, Antonio Artigas, Bernardo Bollen Pinto, Joerg C Schefold, Georg Wolff, Malte Kelm, Michael Beil, Sigal Sviri, Peter V van Heerden, Wojciech Szczeklik, Miroslaw Czuczwar, Muhammed Elhadi, Michael Joannidis, Sandra Oeyen, Tilemachos Zafeiridis, Brian Marsh, Finn H Andersen, Rui Moreno, Maurizio Cecconi, Susannah Leaver, Dylan W De Lange, Bertrand Guidet, Hans Flaatten, Venet Osmani. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 31.03.2022.
Références
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020 Oct 2;117(40):668-673
pubmed: 33357351
JMIR Med Inform. 2021 Jan 27;9(1):e24207
pubmed: 33400679
Crit Care. 2021 Apr 19;25(1):149
pubmed: 33874987
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Aug;25:100502
pubmed: 32835188
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021 Jan 16;7(1):76-77
pubmed: 32645153
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Dec;43(12):1820-1828
pubmed: 28936626
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 14;23(4):e26211
pubmed: 33793407
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Oct;2(10):e496-e497
pubmed: 32984794
BMJ. 2020 Apr 7;369:m1328
pubmed: 32265220
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 11;22(11):e23128
pubmed: 33035175
Eur Respir J. 2021 Oct 7;58(4):
pubmed: 34172464
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Jan;46(1):57-69
pubmed: 31784798
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jul;47(7):733-736
pubmed: 34132841
JMIR Med Inform. 2021 Apr 13;9(4):e25884
pubmed: 33779565
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 30;15(7):e0236618
pubmed: 32730358
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 10;23(2):e24246
pubmed: 33476281
Crit Care. 2021 Sep 23;25(1):344
pubmed: 34556171
J Clin Med. 2020 May 18;9(5):
pubmed: 32443442
Int J Med Inform. 2021 Jan;145:104312
pubmed: 33126059
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2021;79(1):109-120
pubmed: 34487039
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 26;77(3):300-313
pubmed: 33478654
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jan;2(1):76-83
pubmed: 26469222
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2019 Dec 10;7(1):70
pubmed: 31823128
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Jan;45(1):55-61
pubmed: 30478622
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020 Aug;32(8):1599-1608
pubmed: 32557332
F1000Res. 2020 Sep 9;9:1107
pubmed: 33163160
Chest. 2021 Jun;159(6):2264-2273
pubmed: 33345948
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 9;22(11):e24225
pubmed: 33108316
J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 04;9(7):
pubmed: 32635468
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 23;11(7):e044921
pubmed: 34301650
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 04;10(3):e0118432
pubmed: 25738806
JMIR Med Inform. 2021 Jan 11;9(1):e23811
pubmed: 33326405
Intensive Care Med. 2021 May;47(5):624-625
pubmed: 33604761
Ann Intensive Care. 2021 Aug 21;11(1):128
pubmed: 34417919
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 28;22(10):e21801
pubmed: 33090964
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Sep;44(9):1369-1377
pubmed: 30136140
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 May 21;4(1):87
pubmed: 34021235
BMJ. 2020 Nov 4;371:m3919
pubmed: 33148619