Machine learning to predict extubation success using the spontaneous breathing trial, objective cough measurement, and diaphragmatic contraction velocity: Secondary analysis of the COBRE-US trial.

IF 0.9 Q4 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Journal of Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-31 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2478/jccm-2025-0009
Fabio Varón-Vega, Eduardo Tuta-Quintero, Adriana Maldonado-Franco, Henry Robayo-Amórtegui, Luis F Giraldo-Cadavid, Daniel Botero-Rosas
{"title":"Machine learning to predict extubation success using the spontaneous breathing trial, objective cough measurement, and diaphragmatic contraction velocity: Secondary analysis of the COBRE-US trial.","authors":"Fabio Varón-Vega, Eduardo Tuta-Quintero, Adriana Maldonado-Franco, Henry Robayo-Amórtegui, Luis F Giraldo-Cadavid, Daniel Botero-Rosas","doi":"10.2478/jccm-2025-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Determining the optimal timing for extubation in critically ill patients is essential to prevent complications. Predictive models based on Machine Learning (ML) have proven effective in anticipating weaning success, thereby improving clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim of the study: </strong>The study aimed to evaluate the predictive capacity of five ML techniques, both supervised and unsupervised, applied to the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), objective cough measurement (OCM), and diaphragmatic contraction velocity (DCV) to estimate a favorable outcome of SBT and extubation in critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A post hoc analysis conducted on the COBRE-US study. The study included ICU patients who underwent evaluation of SBT, OCM, and DCV. Five ML techniques were applied: unsupervised and supervised to the data in both a training group and a test group. The diagnostic performance of each method was determined using accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In predicting SBT success, all supervised methods displayed the same accuracy in the training group (77.3%) and in the test group (69.6%). In predicting extubation success, decision trees demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy, 89.8% for the training group and 95.7% for the test group. The other supervised methods also showed a good diagnostic accuracy: 85.9% for the training group and 93.5% for the test group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In predictive models using OCM, DCV, and SBT as input variables through five ML techniques, decision trees and artificial neural networks demonstrated the best diagnostic performance. This suggests that these models can effectively classify patients who are likely to succeed in SBT and extubation during the weaning process from mechanical ventilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":44227,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Critical Care Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"70-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864070/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2025-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Determining the optimal timing for extubation in critically ill patients is essential to prevent complications. Predictive models based on Machine Learning (ML) have proven effective in anticipating weaning success, thereby improving clinical outcomes.

Aim of the study: The study aimed to evaluate the predictive capacity of five ML techniques, both supervised and unsupervised, applied to the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), objective cough measurement (OCM), and diaphragmatic contraction velocity (DCV) to estimate a favorable outcome of SBT and extubation in critically ill patients.

Material and methods: A post hoc analysis conducted on the COBRE-US study. The study included ICU patients who underwent evaluation of SBT, OCM, and DCV. Five ML techniques were applied: unsupervised and supervised to the data in both a training group and a test group. The diagnostic performance of each method was determined using accuracy.

Results: In predicting SBT success, all supervised methods displayed the same accuracy in the training group (77.3%) and in the test group (69.6%). In predicting extubation success, decision trees demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy, 89.8% for the training group and 95.7% for the test group. The other supervised methods also showed a good diagnostic accuracy: 85.9% for the training group and 93.5% for the test group.

Conclusions: In predictive models using OCM, DCV, and SBT as input variables through five ML techniques, decision trees and artificial neural networks demonstrated the best diagnostic performance. This suggests that these models can effectively classify patients who are likely to succeed in SBT and extubation during the weaning process from mechanical ventilation.

使用自主呼吸试验、客观咳嗽测量和膈肌收缩速度的机器学习预测拔管成功:COBRE-US试验的二次分析。
确定危重患者拔管的最佳时机对预防并发症至关重要。基于机器学习(ML)的预测模型已被证明可以有效预测断奶成功率,从而改善临床结果。研究目的:本研究旨在评估五种有监督和无监督的ML技术在自主呼吸试验(SBT)、客观咳嗽测量(OCM)和膈肌收缩速度(DCV)中的预测能力,以估计危重患者采用SBT和拔管的有利结果。材料和方法:对COBRE-US研究进行事后分析。该研究纳入了接受SBT、OCM和DCV评估的ICU患者。在训练组和测试组的数据中应用了五种ML技术:无监督和监督。每种方法的诊断性能都是通过准确性来确定的。结果:在预测SBT成功率方面,所有监督方法在训练组(77.3%)和试验组(69.6%)中显示出相同的准确性。在预测拔管成功率时,决策树显示出最高的诊断准确率,训练组为89.8%,试验组为95.7%。其他监督方法也显示出良好的诊断准确性:训练组为85.9%,试验组为93.5%。结论:在使用OCM、DCV和SBT作为输入变量的预测模型中,通过五种ML技术,决策树和人工神经网络表现出最好的诊断性能。这表明这些模型可以有效地对机械通气脱机过程中可能成功进行SBT和拔管的患者进行分类。
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
Journal of Critical Care Medicine
Journal of Critical Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
21
审稿时长
11 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