Development of a Reinforcement Learning Algorithm to Optimize Corticosteroid Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis.
artificial intelligence
corticosteroids
outcomes
reinforcement learning
sepsis
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Feb 2023
14 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
11
01
2023
revised:
30
01
2023
accepted:
06
02
2023
entrez:
25
2
2023
pubmed:
26
2
2023
medline:
26
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The optimal indication, dose, and timing of corticosteroids in sepsis is controversial. Here, we used reinforcement learning to derive the optimal steroid policy in septic patients based on data on 3051 ICU admissions from the AmsterdamUMCdb intensive care database. We identified septic patients according to the 2016 consensus definition. An actor-critic RL algorithm using ICU mortality as a reward signal was developed to determine the optimal treatment policy from time-series data on 277 clinical parameters. We performed off-policy evaluation and testing in independent subsets to assess the algorithm's performance. Agreement between the RL agent's policy and the actual documented treatment reached 59%. Our RL agent's treatment policy was more restrictive compared to the actual clinician behavior: our algorithm suggested withholding corticosteroids in 62% of the patient states, versus 52% according to the physicians' policy. The 95% lower bound of the expected reward was higher for the RL agent than clinicians' historical decisions. ICU mortality after concordant action in the testing dataset was lower both when corticosteroids had been withheld and when corticosteroids had been prescribed by the virtual agent. The most relevant variables were vital parameters and laboratory values, such as blood pressure, heart rate, leucocyte count, and glycemia. Individualized use of corticosteroids in sepsis may result in a mortality benefit, but optimal treatment policy may be more restrictive than the routine clinical practice. Whilst external validation is needed, our study motivates a 'precision-medicine' approach to future prospective controlled trials and practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The optimal indication, dose, and timing of corticosteroids in sepsis is controversial. Here, we used reinforcement learning to derive the optimal steroid policy in septic patients based on data on 3051 ICU admissions from the AmsterdamUMCdb intensive care database.
METHODS
METHODS
We identified septic patients according to the 2016 consensus definition. An actor-critic RL algorithm using ICU mortality as a reward signal was developed to determine the optimal treatment policy from time-series data on 277 clinical parameters. We performed off-policy evaluation and testing in independent subsets to assess the algorithm's performance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Agreement between the RL agent's policy and the actual documented treatment reached 59%. Our RL agent's treatment policy was more restrictive compared to the actual clinician behavior: our algorithm suggested withholding corticosteroids in 62% of the patient states, versus 52% according to the physicians' policy. The 95% lower bound of the expected reward was higher for the RL agent than clinicians' historical decisions. ICU mortality after concordant action in the testing dataset was lower both when corticosteroids had been withheld and when corticosteroids had been prescribed by the virtual agent. The most relevant variables were vital parameters and laboratory values, such as blood pressure, heart rate, leucocyte count, and glycemia.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Individualized use of corticosteroids in sepsis may result in a mortality benefit, but optimal treatment policy may be more restrictive than the routine clinical practice. Whilst external validation is needed, our study motivates a 'precision-medicine' approach to future prospective controlled trials and practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36836046
pii: jcm12041513
doi: 10.3390/jcm12041513
pmc: PMC9961939
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 20;22(7):e18477
pubmed: 32706670
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Crit Care Med. 2021 Jun 1;49(6):e563-e577
pubmed: 33625129
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2013 Aug 15;9(1):30
pubmed: 23947590
HFSP J. 2007 May;1(1):30-40
pubmed: 19404458
JAMA. 2019 May 28;321(20):2003-2017
pubmed: 31104070
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):93-101
pubmed: 19489712
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Dec;43(12):1781-1792
pubmed: 28940017
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2029050
pubmed: 33301017
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Nov 1;192(9):1045-51
pubmed: 26177009
Crit Care Med. 2021 Nov 1;49(11):1883-1894
pubmed: 34259454
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 03;(12):CD002243
pubmed: 26633262
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jul;44(7):1003-1016
pubmed: 29761216
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Jan 1;60(1):88-95
pubmed: 25258352
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 10;358(2):111-24
pubmed: 18184957
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Apr 15;199(8):980-986
pubmed: 30365341
Nat Med. 2018 Nov;24(11):1716-1720
pubmed: 30349085
N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 01;378(9):797-808
pubmed: 29347874
Crit Care. 2019 Nov 27;23(1):374
pubmed: 31775846
Am J Med. 2015 Oct;128(10):1138.e1-1138.e15
pubmed: 26093175
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 12;(9):CD004405
pubmed: 26362566
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Sep;29(9):735-745
pubmed: 32029574
Nature. 1952 Dec 6;170(4336):980
pubmed: 13013286
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 7;172(1):59-60
pubmed: 31842204
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019 Jul;15(7):417-427
pubmed: 30850749
Crit Care. 2008;12(2):141
pubmed: 18466638
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jul;47(7):750-760
pubmed: 34089064
Am J Med. 1981 Nov;71(5):773-8
pubmed: 7304648
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov;47(11):1181-1247
pubmed: 34599691
Lancet. 2020 Jan 18;395(10219):200-211
pubmed: 31954465
Endocrinology. 1991 Dec;129(6):3305-12
pubmed: 1954906
JAMA. 2009 Jun 10;301(22):2362-75
pubmed: 19509383