Effect of machine learning models on clinician prediction of postoperative complications: the Perioperative ORACLE randomised clinical trial

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
{"title":"Effect of machine learning models on clinician prediction of postoperative complications: the Perioperative ORACLE randomised clinical trial","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Anaesthesiologists might be able to mitigate risk if they know which patients are at greatest risk for postoperative complications. This trial examined the impact of machine learning models on clinician risk assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This single-centre, prospective, randomised clinical trial enrolled surgical patients aged ≥18 yr. Anaesthesiologists and nurse anaesthetists providing remote telemedicine support reviewed electronic health records with (assisted group) or without (unassisted group) reviewing machine learning predictions. Clinicians predicted the likelihood of postoperative 30-day all-cause mortality and postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) within 7 days. The primary outcome was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for clinician predictions of mortality and AKI, comparing AUROCs between assisted and unassisted assessments.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We analysed 5071 patients (mean [range] age: 58 [18-100] yr; 52% female) assessed by 89 clinicians. Of these, 98 (2.2%) patients died within 30 days of surgery and 450 (11.1%) patients sustained AKI. Clinician predictions agreed with the models more strongly in the assisted <em>vs</em> unassisted group (weighted kappa 0.75 <em>vs</em> 0.62 for death, mean difference: 0.13 [95% CI 0.10–0.17]; and 0.79 <em>vs</em> 0.54 for AKI, mean difference: 0.25 [95% CI 0.21–0.29]). Clinical prediction of death was similar between the assisted (AUROC 0.793) and unassisted (AUROC 0.780) groups (mean difference: 0.013 [95% CI –0.070 to 0.097]; <em>P</em>=0.76). Prediction of AKI had an AUROC of 0.734 in the assisted group <em>vs</em> 0.688 in the unassisted group (difference 0.046 [95% CI –0.003 to 0.091]; <em>P</em>=0.06).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Clinician performance was not improved by machine learning assistance. Further work is needed to clarify the role of machine learning in real-time perioperative risk stratification.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical trial registration</h3><div>NCT05042804.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224004689","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Anaesthesiologists might be able to mitigate risk if they know which patients are at greatest risk for postoperative complications. This trial examined the impact of machine learning models on clinician risk assessment.

Methods

This single-centre, prospective, randomised clinical trial enrolled surgical patients aged ≥18 yr. Anaesthesiologists and nurse anaesthetists providing remote telemedicine support reviewed electronic health records with (assisted group) or without (unassisted group) reviewing machine learning predictions. Clinicians predicted the likelihood of postoperative 30-day all-cause mortality and postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) within 7 days. The primary outcome was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for clinician predictions of mortality and AKI, comparing AUROCs between assisted and unassisted assessments.

Results

We analysed 5071 patients (mean [range] age: 58 [18-100] yr; 52% female) assessed by 89 clinicians. Of these, 98 (2.2%) patients died within 30 days of surgery and 450 (11.1%) patients sustained AKI. Clinician predictions agreed with the models more strongly in the assisted vs unassisted group (weighted kappa 0.75 vs 0.62 for death, mean difference: 0.13 [95% CI 0.10–0.17]; and 0.79 vs 0.54 for AKI, mean difference: 0.25 [95% CI 0.21–0.29]). Clinical prediction of death was similar between the assisted (AUROC 0.793) and unassisted (AUROC 0.780) groups (mean difference: 0.013 [95% CI –0.070 to 0.097]; P=0.76). Prediction of AKI had an AUROC of 0.734 in the assisted group vs 0.688 in the unassisted group (difference 0.046 [95% CI –0.003 to 0.091]; P=0.06).

Conclusions

Clinician performance was not improved by machine learning assistance. Further work is needed to clarify the role of machine learning in real-time perioperative risk stratification.

Clinical trial registration

NCT05042804.
机器学习模型对临床医生预测术后并发症的影响:ORACLE 围手术期随机临床试验
如果麻醉医师知道哪些患者术后并发症的风险最大,他们就有可能降低风险。这项试验研究了机器学习模型对临床医生风险评估的影响。这项单中心、前瞻性、随机临床试验招募了年龄≥18 岁的外科手术患者。提供远程远程医疗支持的麻醉医师和麻醉护士在审查机器学习预测结果的情况下(辅助组)或不在审查机器学习预测结果的情况下(无辅助组)审查电子健康记录。临床医生预测了术后 30 天全因死亡率和术后 7 天内急性肾损伤 (AKI) 的可能性。主要结果是临床医生预测死亡率和 AKI 的接收者操作特征曲线下面积 (AUROC),比较辅助评估和非辅助评估的 AUROC。我们分析了由 89 名临床医生评估的 5071 名患者(平均 [范围] 年龄:58 [18-100] 岁;52% 为女性)。其中,98 例(2.2%)患者在术后 30 天内死亡,450 例(11.1%)患者出现 AKI。在无辅助辅助组中,临床医生的预测与模型的一致性更高(死亡的加权卡帕为 0.75 0.62,平均差异为 0.13 [95% CI]):0.13 [95% CI 0.10-0.17];AKI 为 0.79 0.54,平均差异为 0.25 [95% CI 0.10-0.17]:0.25 [95% CI 0.21-0.29])。辅助组(AUROC 0.793)和非辅助组(AUROC 0.780)对死亡的临床预测结果相似(平均差异:0.013 [95% CI -0.070 to 0.097]; =0.76)。辅助组预测 AKI 的 AUROC 为 0.734,非辅助组为 0.688(差异为 0.046 [95% CI -0.003 至 0.091];=0.06)。临床医生的表现并未因机器学习辅助而提高。要明确机器学习在围手术期实时风险分层中的作用,还需要进一步的工作。NCT05042804。
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
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
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