Fast and interpretable mortality risk scores for critical care patients.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Chloe Qinyu Zhu, Muhang Tian, Lesia Semenova, Jiachang Liu, Jack Xu, Joseph Scarpa, Cynthia Rudin
{"title":"Fast and interpretable mortality risk scores for critical care patients.","authors":"Chloe Qinyu Zhu, Muhang Tian, Lesia Semenova, Jiachang Liu, Jack Xu, Joseph Scarpa, Cynthia Rudin","doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocae318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Prediction of mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients typically relies on black box models (that are unacceptable for use in hospitals) or hand-tuned interpretable models (that might lead to the loss in performance). We aim to bridge the gap between these 2 categories by building on modern interpretable machine learning (ML) techniques to design interpretable mortality risk scores that are as accurate as black boxes.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We developed a new algorithm, GroupFasterRisk, which has several important benefits: it uses both hard and soft direct sparsity regularization, it incorporates group sparsity to allow more cohesive models, it allows for monotonicity constraint to include domain knowledge, and it produces many equally good models, which allows domain experts to choose among them. For evaluation, we leveraged the largest existing public ICU monitoring datasets (MIMIC III and eICU).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Models produced by GroupFasterRisk outperformed OASIS and SAPS II scores and performed similarly to APACHE IV/IVa while using at most a third of the parameters. For patients with sepsis/septicemia, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and acute kidney failure, GroupFasterRisk models outperformed OASIS and SOFA. Finally, different mortality prediction ML approaches performed better based on variables selected by GroupFasterRisk as compared to OASIS variables.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Group Faster Risk's models performed better than risk scores currently used in hospitals, and on par with black box ML models, while being orders of magnitude sparser. Because GroupFasterRisk produces a variety of risk scores, it allows design flexibility-the key enabler of practical model creation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Group Faster Risk is a fast, accessible, and flexible procedure that allows learning a diverse set of sparse risk scores for mortality prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":50016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocae318","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Prediction of mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients typically relies on black box models (that are unacceptable for use in hospitals) or hand-tuned interpretable models (that might lead to the loss in performance). We aim to bridge the gap between these 2 categories by building on modern interpretable machine learning (ML) techniques to design interpretable mortality risk scores that are as accurate as black boxes.

Material and methods: We developed a new algorithm, GroupFasterRisk, which has several important benefits: it uses both hard and soft direct sparsity regularization, it incorporates group sparsity to allow more cohesive models, it allows for monotonicity constraint to include domain knowledge, and it produces many equally good models, which allows domain experts to choose among them. For evaluation, we leveraged the largest existing public ICU monitoring datasets (MIMIC III and eICU).

Results: Models produced by GroupFasterRisk outperformed OASIS and SAPS II scores and performed similarly to APACHE IV/IVa while using at most a third of the parameters. For patients with sepsis/septicemia, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and acute kidney failure, GroupFasterRisk models outperformed OASIS and SOFA. Finally, different mortality prediction ML approaches performed better based on variables selected by GroupFasterRisk as compared to OASIS variables.

Discussion: Group Faster Risk's models performed better than risk scores currently used in hospitals, and on par with black box ML models, while being orders of magnitude sparser. Because GroupFasterRisk produces a variety of risk scores, it allows design flexibility-the key enabler of practical model creation.

Conclusion: Group Faster Risk is a fast, accessible, and flexible procedure that allows learning a diverse set of sparse risk scores for mortality prediction.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 医学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
7.80%
发文量
230
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMIA is AMIA''s premier peer-reviewed journal for biomedical and health informatics. Covering the full spectrum of activities in the field, JAMIA includes informatics articles in the areas of clinical care, clinical research, translational science, implementation science, imaging, education, consumer health, public health, and policy. JAMIA''s articles describe innovative informatics research and systems that help to advance biomedical science and to promote health. Case reports, perspectives and reviews also help readers stay connected with the most important informatics developments in implementation, policy and education.
×
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