比较机器学习和逻辑回归模型对电子健康记录中 30 天非计划再入院的预测:开发与验证研究。

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2024-08-20 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000578
Masao Iwagami, Ryota Inokuchi, Eiryo Kawakami, Tomohide Yamada, Atsushi Goto, Toshiki Kuno, Yohei Hashimoto, Nobuaki Michihata, Tadahiro Goto, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yu Sun, Yuta Taniguchi, Jun Komiyama, Kazuaki Uda, Toshikazu Abe, Nanako Tamiya
{"title":"比较机器学习和逻辑回归模型对电子健康记录中 30 天非计划再入院的预测:开发与验证研究。","authors":"Masao Iwagami, Ryota Inokuchi, Eiryo Kawakami, Tomohide Yamada, Atsushi Goto, Toshiki Kuno, Yohei Hashimoto, Nobuaki Michihata, Tadahiro Goto, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yu Sun, Yuta Taniguchi, Jun Komiyama, Kazuaki Uda, Toshikazu Abe, Nanako Tamiya","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is expected but unknown whether machine-learning models can outperform regression models, such as a logistic regression (LR) model, especially when the number and types of predictor variables increase in electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to compare the predictive performance of gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT), random forest (RF), deep neural network (DNN), and LR with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LR-LASSO) for unplanned readmission. We used EHRs of patients discharged alive from 38 hospitals in 2015-2017 for derivation and in 2018 for validation, including basic characteristics, diagnosis, surgery, procedure, and drug codes, and blood-test results. The outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. We created six patterns of data tables having different numbers of binary variables (that ≥5% or ≥1% of patients or ≥10 patients had) with and without blood-test results. For each pattern of data tables, we used the derivation data to establish the machine-learning and LR models, and used the validation data to evaluate the performance of each model. The incidence of outcome was 6.8% (23,108/339,513 discharges) and 6.4% (7,507/118,074 discharges) in the derivation and validation datasets, respectively. For the first data table with the smallest number of variables (102 variables that ≥5% of patients had, without blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.740), followed by RF (0.734), LR-LASSO (0.720), and DNN (0.664). For the last data table with the largest number of variables (1543 variables that ≥10 patients had, including blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.764), followed by LR-LASSO (0.755), RF (0.751), and DNN (0.720), suggesting that the difference between GBDT and LR-LASSO was small and their 95% confidence intervals overlapped. In conclusion, GBDT generally outperformed LR-LASSO to predict unplanned readmission, but the difference of c-statistic became smaller as the number of variables was increased and blood-test results were used.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"3 8","pages":"e0000578"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11335098/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of machine-learning and logistic regression models for prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission in electronic health records: A development and validation study.\",\"authors\":\"Masao Iwagami, Ryota Inokuchi, Eiryo Kawakami, Tomohide Yamada, Atsushi Goto, Toshiki Kuno, Yohei Hashimoto, Nobuaki Michihata, Tadahiro Goto, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yu Sun, Yuta Taniguchi, Jun Komiyama, Kazuaki Uda, Toshikazu Abe, Nanako Tamiya\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>It is expected but unknown whether machine-learning models can outperform regression models, such as a logistic regression (LR) model, especially when the number and types of predictor variables increase in electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to compare the predictive performance of gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT), random forest (RF), deep neural network (DNN), and LR with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LR-LASSO) for unplanned readmission. We used EHRs of patients discharged alive from 38 hospitals in 2015-2017 for derivation and in 2018 for validation, including basic characteristics, diagnosis, surgery, procedure, and drug codes, and blood-test results. The outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. We created six patterns of data tables having different numbers of binary variables (that ≥5% or ≥1% of patients or ≥10 patients had) with and without blood-test results. For each pattern of data tables, we used the derivation data to establish the machine-learning and LR models, and used the validation data to evaluate the performance of each model. The incidence of outcome was 6.8% (23,108/339,513 discharges) and 6.4% (7,507/118,074 discharges) in the derivation and validation datasets, respectively. For the first data table with the smallest number of variables (102 variables that ≥5% of patients had, without blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.740), followed by RF (0.734), LR-LASSO (0.720), and DNN (0.664). For the last data table with the largest number of variables (1543 variables that ≥10 patients had, including blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.764), followed by LR-LASSO (0.755), RF (0.751), and DNN (0.720), suggesting that the difference between GBDT and LR-LASSO was small and their 95% confidence intervals overlapped. In conclusion, GBDT generally outperformed LR-LASSO to predict unplanned readmission, but the difference of c-statistic became smaller as the number of variables was increased and blood-test results were used.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"volume\":\"3 8\",\"pages\":\"e0000578\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11335098/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000578\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000578","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器学习模型是否能优于回归模型(如逻辑回归模型),尤其是当电子健康记录(EHR)中预测变量的数量和类型增加时,这一点虽在意料之中,但却不得而知。我们旨在比较梯度提升决策树(GBDT)、随机森林(RF)、深度神经网络(DNN)和带有最小绝对收缩和选择算子的逻辑回归(LR-LASSO)对计划外再入院的预测性能。我们使用了 38 家医院 2015-2017 年出院的存活患者的电子病历作为推导,2018 年出院的存活患者的电子病历作为验证,包括基本特征、诊断、手术、程序和药物代码以及血液检测结果。结果为 30 天非计划再入院。我们创建了六种模式的数据表,这些数据表具有不同数量的二进制变量(≥5% 或≥1% 的患者或≥10 名患者具有),有血液检测结果和无血液检测结果。对于每种数据表模式,我们使用推导数据建立机器学习模型和 LR 模型,并使用验证数据评估每个模型的性能。在推导数据集和验证数据集中,结果发生率分别为 6.8%(23108/339,513 例出院者)和 6.4%(7507/118,074 例出院者)。对于变量数量最少的第一个数据表(≥5% 的患者拥有的 102 个变量,无血液检测结果),GBDT 的 c 统计量最高(0.740),其次是 RF(0.734)、LR-LASSO(0.720)和 DNN(0.664)。在变量数最多的最后一张数据表中(包括血液检测结果在内的 1543 个≥10 名患者拥有的变量),GBDT 的 c 统计量最高(0.764),其次是 LR-LASSO(0.755)、RF(0.751)和 DNN(0.720),这表明 GBDT 和 LR-LASSO 之间的差异很小,且它们的 95% 置信区间重叠。总之,在预测非计划再入院方面,GBDT 总体上优于 LR-LASSO,但随着变量数量的增加和血液检测结果的使用,c 统计量的差异越来越小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of machine-learning and logistic regression models for prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission in electronic health records: A development and validation study.

It is expected but unknown whether machine-learning models can outperform regression models, such as a logistic regression (LR) model, especially when the number and types of predictor variables increase in electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to compare the predictive performance of gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT), random forest (RF), deep neural network (DNN), and LR with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LR-LASSO) for unplanned readmission. We used EHRs of patients discharged alive from 38 hospitals in 2015-2017 for derivation and in 2018 for validation, including basic characteristics, diagnosis, surgery, procedure, and drug codes, and blood-test results. The outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. We created six patterns of data tables having different numbers of binary variables (that ≥5% or ≥1% of patients or ≥10 patients had) with and without blood-test results. For each pattern of data tables, we used the derivation data to establish the machine-learning and LR models, and used the validation data to evaluate the performance of each model. The incidence of outcome was 6.8% (23,108/339,513 discharges) and 6.4% (7,507/118,074 discharges) in the derivation and validation datasets, respectively. For the first data table with the smallest number of variables (102 variables that ≥5% of patients had, without blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.740), followed by RF (0.734), LR-LASSO (0.720), and DNN (0.664). For the last data table with the largest number of variables (1543 variables that ≥10 patients had, including blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.764), followed by LR-LASSO (0.755), RF (0.751), and DNN (0.720), suggesting that the difference between GBDT and LR-LASSO was small and their 95% confidence intervals overlapped. In conclusion, GBDT generally outperformed LR-LASSO to predict unplanned readmission, but the difference of c-statistic became smaller as the number of variables was increased and blood-test results were used.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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