Exploring timely and safe discharge from ICU: a comparative study of machine learning predictions and clinical practices.

IF 2.8 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chao Ping Wu, Rachel Benish Shirley, Alex Milinovich, Kaiyin Liu, Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila, Hassan Khouli, Abhijit Duggal, Anirban Bhattacharyya
{"title":"Exploring timely and safe discharge from ICU: a comparative study of machine learning predictions and clinical practices.","authors":"Chao Ping Wu, Rachel Benish Shirley, Alex Milinovich, Kaiyin Liu, Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila, Hassan Khouli, Abhijit Duggal, Anirban Bhattacharyya","doi":"10.1186/s40635-025-00717-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The discharge practices from the intensive care unit exhibit heterogeneity and the recognition of eligible patients for discharge is often delayed. Recognizing the importance of safe discharge, which aims to minimize readmission and mortality, we developed a dynamic machine-learning model. The model aims to accurately identify patients ready for discharge, offering a comparison of its effectiveness with physician decisions in terms of safety and discrepancies in discharge readiness assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study uses data from patients in the medical ICU from 2015-to-2019 to develop ML models. The models were based on dynamic ICU-readily available features such as hourly vital signs, laboratory results, and interventions and were developed using various ML algorithms. The primary outcome was the hourly prediction of ICU discharge without readmission or death within 72 h post-discharge. These outcomes underwent subsequent validation within a distinct cohort from the year 2020. Additionally, the models' performance was assessed in comparison to physician judgments, with any discrepancies between the two carefully analyzed.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>In the 2015-to-2019 cohort, the study included 17,852 unique ICU admissions. The LightGBM model outperformed other algorithms, achieving a AUROC of 0.91 (95%CI 0.9-0.91) and performance was held in the 2020 validation cohort (n = 509) with an AUROC of 0.85 (95%CI 0.84-0.85). The calibration result showed Brier score of 0.254 (95%CI 0.253-0.255). The physician agreed with the models' discharge-readiness prediction in 84.5% of patients. In patients discharged by physicians but not deemed ready by our model, the relative risk of 72-h post-ICU adverse outcomes was 2.32 (95% CI 1.1-4.9). Furthermore, the model predicted patients' readiness for discharge between 5 (IQR: 2-13.5) and 9 (IQR: 3-17) hours earlier in our selected thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study underscores the potential of ML models in predicting patient discharge readiness, mirroring physician behavior closely while identifying eligible patients earlier. It also highlights ML models can serve as a promising screening tool to enhance ICU discharge, presenting a pathway toward more efficient and reliable critical care decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":13750,"journal":{"name":"Intensive Care Medicine Experimental","volume":"13 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11759737/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive Care Medicine Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-025-00717-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The discharge practices from the intensive care unit exhibit heterogeneity and the recognition of eligible patients for discharge is often delayed. Recognizing the importance of safe discharge, which aims to minimize readmission and mortality, we developed a dynamic machine-learning model. The model aims to accurately identify patients ready for discharge, offering a comparison of its effectiveness with physician decisions in terms of safety and discrepancies in discharge readiness assessment.

Methods: This retrospective study uses data from patients in the medical ICU from 2015-to-2019 to develop ML models. The models were based on dynamic ICU-readily available features such as hourly vital signs, laboratory results, and interventions and were developed using various ML algorithms. The primary outcome was the hourly prediction of ICU discharge without readmission or death within 72 h post-discharge. These outcomes underwent subsequent validation within a distinct cohort from the year 2020. Additionally, the models' performance was assessed in comparison to physician judgments, with any discrepancies between the two carefully analyzed.

Result: In the 2015-to-2019 cohort, the study included 17,852 unique ICU admissions. The LightGBM model outperformed other algorithms, achieving a AUROC of 0.91 (95%CI 0.9-0.91) and performance was held in the 2020 validation cohort (n = 509) with an AUROC of 0.85 (95%CI 0.84-0.85). The calibration result showed Brier score of 0.254 (95%CI 0.253-0.255). The physician agreed with the models' discharge-readiness prediction in 84.5% of patients. In patients discharged by physicians but not deemed ready by our model, the relative risk of 72-h post-ICU adverse outcomes was 2.32 (95% CI 1.1-4.9). Furthermore, the model predicted patients' readiness for discharge between 5 (IQR: 2-13.5) and 9 (IQR: 3-17) hours earlier in our selected thresholds.

Conclusion: The study underscores the potential of ML models in predicting patient discharge readiness, mirroring physician behavior closely while identifying eligible patients earlier. It also highlights ML models can serve as a promising screening tool to enhance ICU discharge, presenting a pathway toward more efficient and reliable critical care decision-making.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
2.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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