"Dead or Alive?" Assessment of the Binary End-of-Event Outcome Indicator for the NEMSIS Public Research Dataset.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Mary E Helander
{"title":"\"Dead or Alive?\" Assessment of the Binary End-of-Event Outcome Indicator for the NEMSIS Public Research Dataset.","authors":"Mary E Helander","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2024.2389551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) provides a robust set of data to evaluate prehospital care. However, a major limitation is that the vast majority of the records lack a definitive outcome. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a recently proposed method (\"MLB\" method) to impute missing end-of-EMS-event outcomes (\"dead\" or \"alive\") for patient care reports in the NEMSIS public research dataset.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study reproduced the recently published method for patient outcome imputation in the NEMSIS database and replicated the results for years 2017 through 2022 (<i>n</i> = 686,075). We performed statistical analyses leveraging an array of established performance metrics for binary classification from the machine learning literature. Evaluation metrics included overall accuracy, true positive rate, true negative rate, balanced accuracy, precision, F1 score, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, Matthews' coefficient, Hamming loss, the Jaccard similarity score, and the receiver operating characteristic/area under the curve.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Extended metrics show consistently good imputation performance from year-to-year but reveal weakness in accurately indicating the minority class: e.g., after adjustments for conflicting labels, \"dead\" prediction accuracy is 77.7% for 2018 and 61.8% over the six-year NEMSIS sub-sample, even though overall accuracy is 98.8%. Slight over-fitting is also present.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that the recently published MLB method produced reasonably good \"dead\" or \"alive\" indicators. We recommend reporting of True Positive Rate (\"dead\" prediction accuracy) and True Negative Rate (\"alive\" prediction accuracy) when applying the imputation method for analyses of NEMSIS data. More attention by EMS clinicians to complete documentation of target NEMSIS elements can further improve the method's performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2389551","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) provides a robust set of data to evaluate prehospital care. However, a major limitation is that the vast majority of the records lack a definitive outcome. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a recently proposed method ("MLB" method) to impute missing end-of-EMS-event outcomes ("dead" or "alive") for patient care reports in the NEMSIS public research dataset.

Methods: This study reproduced the recently published method for patient outcome imputation in the NEMSIS database and replicated the results for years 2017 through 2022 (n = 686,075). We performed statistical analyses leveraging an array of established performance metrics for binary classification from the machine learning literature. Evaluation metrics included overall accuracy, true positive rate, true negative rate, balanced accuracy, precision, F1 score, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, Matthews' coefficient, Hamming loss, the Jaccard similarity score, and the receiver operating characteristic/area under the curve.

Results: Extended metrics show consistently good imputation performance from year-to-year but reveal weakness in accurately indicating the minority class: e.g., after adjustments for conflicting labels, "dead" prediction accuracy is 77.7% for 2018 and 61.8% over the six-year NEMSIS sub-sample, even though overall accuracy is 98.8%. Slight over-fitting is also present.

Conclusions: This study found that the recently published MLB method produced reasonably good "dead" or "alive" indicators. We recommend reporting of True Positive Rate ("dead" prediction accuracy) and True Negative Rate ("alive" prediction accuracy) when applying the imputation method for analyses of NEMSIS data. More attention by EMS clinicians to complete documentation of target NEMSIS elements can further improve the method's performance.

"死还是活?评估 NEMSIS 公共研究数据集的二进制事件结束结果指标。
目的:国家紧急医疗服务信息服务系统(NEMSIS)提供了一套强大的数据来评估院前护理。然而,其主要局限性在于绝大多数记录缺乏明确的结果。我们的目的是评估最近提出的一种方法("MLB "方法)的性能,该方法可对 NEMSIS 公共研究数据集中的患者护理报告中缺失的急救事件结束结果("死亡 "或 "存活")进行估算:本研究在 NEMSIS 数据库中复制了最近公布的患者结果估算方法,并复制了 2017 年至 2022 年(n = 686,075 人)的结果。我们利用机器学习文献中一系列既定的二元分类性能指标进行了统计分析。评估指标包括总体准确率、真阳性率、真阴性率、平衡准确率、精确度、F1 分数、科恩卡帕系数、马修斯系数、汉明损失、Jaccard 相似性得分以及接收者操作特征/曲线下面积:扩展指标显示,各年的估算性能始终良好,但在准确显示少数群体类别方面存在弱点:例如,在对冲突标签进行调整后,2018 年的 "死亡 "预测准确率为 77.7%,六年 NEMSIS 子样本的准确率为 61.8%,尽管总体准确率为 98.8%。此外,还存在轻微的过拟合现象:我们发现,最近公布的 MLB 方法产生了相当好的 "死 "或 "活 "指标。我们建议在应用归因法分析 NEMSIS 数据时报告真阳性率("死亡 "预测准确率)和真阴性率("存活 "预测准确率)。紧急医疗服务临床医生应更多地关注 NEMSIS 目标要素的完整记录,以进一步提高该方法的性能。
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
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
×
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