{"title":"将国际疾病分类代码转换为简易伤害量表的深度学习方法比较","authors":"Ayush Doshi, Thomas Hartka","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.06.24303847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The injury severity classifications generated from the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) provide information that allows for standardized comparisons in the field of trauma injury research. However, the majority of injuries are coded in International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and lack this severity information. A system to predict injury severity classifications from ICD codes would be beneficial as manually coding in AIS can be time-intensive or even impossible for some retrospective cases. It has been previously shown that the encoder-decoder-based neural machine translation (NMT) model is more accurate than a one-to-one mapping of ICD codes to AIS. The objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of two architectures, feedforward neural networks (FFNN) and NMT, in predicting Injury Severity Score (ISS) and ISS ≥16 classification. Both architectures were tested in direct conversion from ICD codes to ISS score and indirect conversion through AIS for a total of four models. Trauma cases from the U.S. National Trauma Data Bank were used to develop and test the four models as the injuries were coded in both ICD and AIS. 2,031,793 trauma cases from 2017-2018 were used to train and validate the models while 1,091,792 cases from 2019 were used to test and compare them. The results showed that indirect conversion through AIS using an NMT was the most accurate in predicting the exact ISS score, followed by direct conversion with FFNN, direct conversion with NMT, and lastly indirect conversion with FFNN, with statistically significant differences in performance on all pairwise comparisons. The rankings were similar when comparing the accuracy of predicting ISS ≥16 classification, however the differences were smaller. The NMT architecture continues to demonstrate notable accuracy in predicting exact ISS scores, but a simpler FFNN approach may be preferred in specific situations, such as if only ISS ≥16 classification is needed or large-scale computational resources are unavailable.","PeriodicalId":501290,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","volume":"103 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Deep Learning Approaches for Conversion of International Classification of Diseases Codes to the Abbreviated Injury Scale\",\"authors\":\"Ayush Doshi, Thomas Hartka\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.03.06.24303847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The injury severity classifications generated from the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) provide information that allows for standardized comparisons in the field of trauma injury research. However, the majority of injuries are coded in International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and lack this severity information. A system to predict injury severity classifications from ICD codes would be beneficial as manually coding in AIS can be time-intensive or even impossible for some retrospective cases. It has been previously shown that the encoder-decoder-based neural machine translation (NMT) model is more accurate than a one-to-one mapping of ICD codes to AIS. The objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of two architectures, feedforward neural networks (FFNN) and NMT, in predicting Injury Severity Score (ISS) and ISS ≥16 classification. Both architectures were tested in direct conversion from ICD codes to ISS score and indirect conversion through AIS for a total of four models. Trauma cases from the U.S. National Trauma Data Bank were used to develop and test the four models as the injuries were coded in both ICD and AIS. 2,031,793 trauma cases from 2017-2018 were used to train and validate the models while 1,091,792 cases from 2019 were used to test and compare them. The results showed that indirect conversion through AIS using an NMT was the most accurate in predicting the exact ISS score, followed by direct conversion with FFNN, direct conversion with NMT, and lastly indirect conversion with FFNN, with statistically significant differences in performance on all pairwise comparisons. The rankings were similar when comparing the accuracy of predicting ISS ≥16 classification, however the differences were smaller. The NMT architecture continues to demonstrate notable accuracy in predicting exact ISS scores, but a simpler FFNN approach may be preferred in specific situations, such as if only ISS ≥16 classification is needed or large-scale computational resources are unavailable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.06.24303847\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.06.24303847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
由简易伤害量表(AIS)生成的伤害严重程度分类提供了在创伤伤害研究领域进行标准化比较的信息。然而,大多数伤害都是按照国际疾病分类(ICD)进行编码的,缺乏这种严重程度信息。根据 ICD 编码预测损伤严重程度分类的系统将大有裨益,因为在 AIS 中手动编码可能会耗费大量时间,对于某些回顾性病例来说甚至是不可能的。以前的研究表明,基于编码器-解码器的神经机器翻译(NMT)模型比 ICD 代码与 AIS 的一对一映射更准确。本研究的目的是比较前馈神经网络(FFNN)和 NMT 这两种架构在预测损伤严重程度评分(ISS)和 ISS ≥16 分类方面的准确性。这两种架构都在从 ICD 代码直接转换到 ISS 分数和通过 AIS 间接转换的过程中进行了测试,总共有四个模型。美国国家创伤数据库中的创伤病例被用于开发和测试这四种模型,因为这些创伤病例的编码既有 ICD 编码,也有 AIS 编码。2017-2018年的2,031,793个创伤病例用于训练和验证模型,2019年的1,091,792个病例用于测试和比较模型。结果显示,使用 NMT 通过 AIS 间接转换预测 ISS 精确得分的准确度最高,其次是使用 FFNN 直接转换、使用 NMT 直接转换,最后是使用 FFNN 间接转换,所有成对比较的性能差异均有统计学意义。在比较预测 ISS≥16 分类的准确性时,排名情况类似,但差异较小。NMT 架构在预测准确的 ISS 分数方面继续表现出显著的准确性,但在特定情况下,如仅需要 ISS ≥16 分类或无法获得大规模计算资源时,可能更倾向于使用更简单的 FFNN 方法。
Comparison of Deep Learning Approaches for Conversion of International Classification of Diseases Codes to the Abbreviated Injury Scale
The injury severity classifications generated from the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) provide information that allows for standardized comparisons in the field of trauma injury research. However, the majority of injuries are coded in International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and lack this severity information. A system to predict injury severity classifications from ICD codes would be beneficial as manually coding in AIS can be time-intensive or even impossible for some retrospective cases. It has been previously shown that the encoder-decoder-based neural machine translation (NMT) model is more accurate than a one-to-one mapping of ICD codes to AIS. The objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of two architectures, feedforward neural networks (FFNN) and NMT, in predicting Injury Severity Score (ISS) and ISS ≥16 classification. Both architectures were tested in direct conversion from ICD codes to ISS score and indirect conversion through AIS for a total of four models. Trauma cases from the U.S. National Trauma Data Bank were used to develop and test the four models as the injuries were coded in both ICD and AIS. 2,031,793 trauma cases from 2017-2018 were used to train and validate the models while 1,091,792 cases from 2019 were used to test and compare them. The results showed that indirect conversion through AIS using an NMT was the most accurate in predicting the exact ISS score, followed by direct conversion with FFNN, direct conversion with NMT, and lastly indirect conversion with FFNN, with statistically significant differences in performance on all pairwise comparisons. The rankings were similar when comparing the accuracy of predicting ISS ≥16 classification, however the differences were smaller. The NMT architecture continues to demonstrate notable accuracy in predicting exact ISS scores, but a simpler FFNN approach may be preferred in specific situations, such as if only ISS ≥16 classification is needed or large-scale computational resources are unavailable.