Improved performance of machine learning models in predicting length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient mortality after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific variables.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Abdul K Zalikha, Tannor Court, Fong Nham, Mouhanad M El-Othmani, Roshan P Shah
{"title":"Improved performance of machine learning models in predicting length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient mortality after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific variables.","authors":"Abdul K Zalikha,&nbsp;Tannor Court,&nbsp;Fong Nham,&nbsp;Mouhanad M El-Othmani,&nbsp;Roshan P Shah","doi":"10.1186/s42836-023-00187-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the performance of ten predictive models using different machine learning (ML) algorithms and compare the performance of models developed using patient-specific vs. situational variables in predicting select outcomes after primary TKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 2016 to 2017 from the National Inpatient Sample were used to identify 305,577 discharges undergoing primary TKA, which were included in the training, testing, and validation of 10 ML models. 15 predictive variables consisting of 8 patient-specific and 7 situational variables were utilized to predict length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and mortality. Using the best performing algorithms, models trained using either 8 patient-specific and 7 situational variables were then developed and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For models developed using all 15 variables, Linear Support Vector Machine (LSVM) was the most responsive model for predicting LOS. LSVM and XGT Boost Tree were equivalently most responsive for predicting discharge disposition. LSVM and XGT Boost Linear were equivalently most responsive for predicting mortality. Decision List, CHAID, and LSVM were the most reliable models for predicting LOS and discharge disposition, while XGT Boost Tree, Decision List, LSVM, and CHAID were most reliable for mortality. Models developed using the 8 patient-specific variables outperformed those developed using the 7 situational variables, with few exceptions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study revealed that performance of different models varied, ranging from poor to excellent, and demonstrated that models developed using patient-specific variables were typically better predictive of quality metrics after TKA than those developed employing situational variables.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10315023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-023-00187-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the performance of ten predictive models using different machine learning (ML) algorithms and compare the performance of models developed using patient-specific vs. situational variables in predicting select outcomes after primary TKA.

Methods: Data from 2016 to 2017 from the National Inpatient Sample were used to identify 305,577 discharges undergoing primary TKA, which were included in the training, testing, and validation of 10 ML models. 15 predictive variables consisting of 8 patient-specific and 7 situational variables were utilized to predict length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and mortality. Using the best performing algorithms, models trained using either 8 patient-specific and 7 situational variables were then developed and compared.

Results: For models developed using all 15 variables, Linear Support Vector Machine (LSVM) was the most responsive model for predicting LOS. LSVM and XGT Boost Tree were equivalently most responsive for predicting discharge disposition. LSVM and XGT Boost Linear were equivalently most responsive for predicting mortality. Decision List, CHAID, and LSVM were the most reliable models for predicting LOS and discharge disposition, while XGT Boost Tree, Decision List, LSVM, and CHAID were most reliable for mortality. Models developed using the 8 patient-specific variables outperformed those developed using the 7 situational variables, with few exceptions.

Conclusion: This study revealed that performance of different models varied, ranging from poor to excellent, and demonstrated that models developed using patient-specific variables were typically better predictive of quality metrics after TKA than those developed employing situational variables.

Level of evidence: III.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

利用患者特异性变量,提高机器学习模型在预测全膝关节置换术后住院时间、出院处置和住院死亡率方面的性能。
背景:本研究旨在比较使用不同机器学习(ML)算法的十种预测模型的性能,并比较使用患者特定变量和情境变量开发的模型在预测原发性TKA后选择结果方面的性能。方法:采用2016 - 2017年全国住院患者样本数据,筛选出305577例接受原发性TKA的出院患者,纳入10个ML模型的训练、测试和验证。15个预测变量,包括8个患者特异性变量和7个情境变量,用于预测住院时间(LOS)、出院处置和死亡率。使用性能最好的算法,使用8个患者特定变量和7个情境变量训练的模型然后被开发和比较。结果:对于使用所有15个变量开发的模型,线性支持向量机(LSVM)是预测LOS的最有效模型。LSVM和XGT Boost Tree在预测放电处置方面同样反应最灵敏。LSVM和XGT Boost Linear在预测死亡率方面同样最有效。决策列表、CHAID和LSVM是预测LOS和出院处置最可靠的模型,而XGT Boost Tree、决策列表、LSVM和CHAID是预测死亡率最可靠的模型。使用8个患者特定变量开发的模型优于使用7个情境变量开发的模型,几乎没有例外。结论:本研究揭示了不同模型的表现各不相同,从差到好,并证明了使用患者特定变量开发的模型通常比使用情境变量开发的模型更能预测TKA后的质量指标。证据水平:III。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信