Combining Machine Learning With Real-World Data to Identify Gaps in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Feasibility Study Using the Prospective German Stroke Registry and the National Acute Ischemic Stroke Guidelines.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Sandrine Müller, Susanne Diekmann, Markus Wenzel, Horst Karl Hahn, Johannes Tuennerhoff, Ulrike Ernemann, Florian Hennersdorf, Max Westphal, Sven Poli
{"title":"Combining Machine Learning With Real-World Data to Identify Gaps in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Feasibility Study Using the Prospective German Stroke Registry and the National Acute Ischemic Stroke Guidelines.","authors":"Sandrine Müller, Susanne Diekmann, Markus Wenzel, Horst Karl Hahn, Johannes Tuennerhoff, Ulrike Ernemann, Florian Hennersdorf, Max Westphal, Sven Poli","doi":"10.2196/69282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) serve as essential tools for guiding clinicians in providing appropriate patient care. However, clinical practice does not always reflect CPGs. This is particularly critical in acute diseases requiring immediate treatment, such as acute ischemic stroke, one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Adherence to CPGs improves patient outcomes, yet guidelines may not address all patient scenarios, resulting in variability in treatment decisions. Identifying such gaps would augment CPGs but is challenging when using traditional methods.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to leverage real-world data coupled with machine learning (ML) techniques to systematically identify and quantify gaps in German thrombolysis-in-stroke guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed observational data from the German Stroke Registry - Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET), a prospective national registry involving 18,069 patients from 25 stroke centers in whom endovascular treatment of a large vessel occlusion was attempted between 2015 and 2023. Key variables included demographic, clinical and imaging information, treatment details, and outcomes. A random forest model was used to predict intravenous thrombolysis treatment decisions based on three different sets of features: (1) guideline-recommended features, (2) clinician-selected features, and (3) features as documented in the GSR-ET before thrombolytic treatment. Feature importance scores, permutation importance, and Shapley Additive Explanations values were used, with clinician guidance, to interpret the model and identify key factors associated with guideline deviations and independent clinician judgments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of all GSR-ET patients, 13,440 (74.4%) were analyzed after excluding those with incomplete or implausible data. The random forest model's performance, measured by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, was 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73), 0.74 (95% CI 0.73-0.75), and 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) for the guideline-recommended, clinician-selected, and GSR-ET feature sets, respectively. Across all sets, time from symptom onset to admission was the most important predictor of thrombolysis treatment decisions. Age, which according to the German guidelines is not to be considered for thrombolysis administration, emerged as a significant predictor in the GSR-ET feature set, suggesting a potential gap between guidelines and clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our study, we introduce an innovative approach that combines real-world data with ML techniques to identify discrepancies between CPGs and actual clinical decision-making. Using intravenous thrombolysis in large vessel occlusion stroke as a model, our findings suggest that treatment decisions may be influenced by factors not explicitly included in the current German guideline, such as patient age and pre-stroke functional status. This approach may help uncover clinically relevant variables for potential inclusion in future guideline refinements.</p>","PeriodicalId":56334,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Informatics","volume":"13 ","pages":"e69282"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274016/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/69282","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) serve as essential tools for guiding clinicians in providing appropriate patient care. However, clinical practice does not always reflect CPGs. This is particularly critical in acute diseases requiring immediate treatment, such as acute ischemic stroke, one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Adherence to CPGs improves patient outcomes, yet guidelines may not address all patient scenarios, resulting in variability in treatment decisions. Identifying such gaps would augment CPGs but is challenging when using traditional methods.

Objective: This study aims to leverage real-world data coupled with machine learning (ML) techniques to systematically identify and quantify gaps in German thrombolysis-in-stroke guidelines.

Methods: We analyzed observational data from the German Stroke Registry - Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET), a prospective national registry involving 18,069 patients from 25 stroke centers in whom endovascular treatment of a large vessel occlusion was attempted between 2015 and 2023. Key variables included demographic, clinical and imaging information, treatment details, and outcomes. A random forest model was used to predict intravenous thrombolysis treatment decisions based on three different sets of features: (1) guideline-recommended features, (2) clinician-selected features, and (3) features as documented in the GSR-ET before thrombolytic treatment. Feature importance scores, permutation importance, and Shapley Additive Explanations values were used, with clinician guidance, to interpret the model and identify key factors associated with guideline deviations and independent clinician judgments.

Results: Of all GSR-ET patients, 13,440 (74.4%) were analyzed after excluding those with incomplete or implausible data. The random forest model's performance, measured by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, was 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73), 0.74 (95% CI 0.73-0.75), and 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) for the guideline-recommended, clinician-selected, and GSR-ET feature sets, respectively. Across all sets, time from symptom onset to admission was the most important predictor of thrombolysis treatment decisions. Age, which according to the German guidelines is not to be considered for thrombolysis administration, emerged as a significant predictor in the GSR-ET feature set, suggesting a potential gap between guidelines and clinical practice.

Conclusions: In our study, we introduce an innovative approach that combines real-world data with ML techniques to identify discrepancies between CPGs and actual clinical decision-making. Using intravenous thrombolysis in large vessel occlusion stroke as a model, our findings suggest that treatment decisions may be influenced by factors not explicitly included in the current German guideline, such as patient age and pre-stroke functional status. This approach may help uncover clinically relevant variables for potential inclusion in future guideline refinements.

将机器学习与真实世界数据相结合以确定临床实践指南中的差距:使用前瞻性德国卒中登记和国家急性缺血性卒中指南的可行性研究。
背景:临床实践指南(CPGs)是指导临床医生提供适当患者护理的重要工具。然而,临床实践并不总是反映CPGs。这对于需要立即治疗的急性疾病尤其重要,例如急性缺血性中风,这是全世界发病率和死亡率的主要原因之一。坚持CPGs可以改善患者的预后,但指南可能无法解决所有患者的情况,导致治疗决策的可变性。确定这些差距将增加cpg,但在使用传统方法时具有挑战性。目的:本研究旨在利用真实世界的数据与机器学习(ML)技术相结合,系统地识别和量化德国卒中溶栓指南中的差距。方法:我们分析了来自德国卒中登记-血管内治疗(GSR-ET)的观察数据,这是一项前瞻性的国家登记,涉及来自25个卒中中心的18,069名患者,这些患者在2015年至2023年间尝试了大血管闭塞的血管内治疗。关键变量包括人口统计学、临床和影像学信息、治疗细节和结果。随机森林模型基于三组不同的特征来预测静脉溶栓治疗决策:(1)指南推荐的特征,(2)临床医生选择的特征,(3)溶栓治疗前GSR-ET中记录的特征。在临床医生的指导下,使用特征重要性评分、排列重要性和Shapley加性解释值来解释模型,并确定与指南偏差和独立临床医生判断相关的关键因素。结果:在所有GSR-ET患者中,剔除数据不完整或不可信的患者后,分析了13440例(74.4%)。随机森林模型的表现,通过受试者工作特征曲线下的面积来衡量,对于指南推荐、临床医生选择和GSR-ET特征集,分别为0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73)、0.74 (95% CI 0.73-0.75)和0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78)。在所有组中,从症状出现到入院的时间是溶栓治疗决策的最重要预测因素。年龄,根据德国指南,不考虑溶栓给药,在GSR-ET特征集中成为一个重要的预测因子,这表明指南和临床实践之间存在潜在的差距。结论:在我们的研究中,我们引入了一种创新的方法,将真实世界的数据与ML技术相结合,以识别cpg与实际临床决策之间的差异。使用静脉溶栓治疗大血管闭塞性卒中作为模型,我们的研究结果表明,治疗决策可能受到当前德国指南中未明确包括的因素的影响,例如患者年龄和卒中前功能状态。这种方法可能有助于发现临床相关变量,以潜在地纳入未来的指南改进。
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
JMIR Medical Informatics
JMIR Medical Informatics Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
173
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Medical Informatics (JMI, ISSN 2291-9694) is a top-rated, tier A journal which focuses on clinical informatics, big data in health and health care, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, ehealth infrastructures and implementation. It has a focus on applied, translational research, with a broad readership including clinicians, CIOs, engineers, industry and health informatics professionals. Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), JMIR Med Inform has a slightly different scope (emphasizing more on applications for clinicians and health professionals rather than consumers/citizens, which is the focus of JMIR), publishes even faster, and also allows papers which are more technical or more formative than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信