使用机器学习模型预测严重骨科创伤脓毒症患者的住院死亡率。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
SHOCK Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1097/SHK.0000000000002516
Ze Long, Shengzhi Tan, Baisheng Sun, Yong Qin, Shengjie Wang, Zhencan Han, Tao Han, Feng Lin, Mingxing Lei
{"title":"使用机器学习模型预测严重骨科创伤脓毒症患者的住院死亡率。","authors":"Ze Long, Shengzhi Tan, Baisheng Sun, Yong Qin, Shengjie Wang, Zhencan Han, Tao Han, Feng Lin, Mingxing Lei","doi":"10.1097/SHK.0000000000002516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Purpose: This study aims to establish and validate machine learning-based models to predict death in hospital among critical orthopaedic trauma patients with sepsis or respiratory failure.Methods: This study collected 523 patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database. All patients were randomly classified into a training cohort and a validation cohort. Six algorithms, including logistic regression (LR), extreme gradient boosting machine (eXGBM), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), neural network (NN), and decision tree (DT), were used to develop and optimize models in the training cohort, and internal validation of these models were conducted in the validation cohort. Based on a comprehensive scoring system, which incorporated ten evaluation metrics, the optimal model was obtained with the highest scores. An artificial intelligence (AI) application was deployed based on the optimal model in the study.Results: The in-hospital mortality was 19.69%. Among all developed models, the eXGBM had the highest area under the curve (AUC) value (0.951, 95%CI: 0.934-0.967), and it also showed the highest accuracy (0.902), precise (0.893), recall (0.915), and F1 score (0.904). Based on the scoring system, the eXGBM had the highest score of 53, followed by the RF model (43) and the NN model (39). The scores for the LR, SVM, and DT were 22, 36, and 17, respectively. The decision curve analysis confirmed that both the eXGBM and RF models provided substantial clinical net benefits. However, the eXGBM model consistently outperformed the RF model across multiple evaluation metrics, establishing itself as the superior option for predictive modeling in this scenario, with the RF model as a strong secondary choice. The SHAP analysis revealed that SAPS II, age, respiratory rate, OASIS, and temperature were the most important five features contributing to the outcome.Conclusions: This study develops an artificial intelligence application to predict in-hospital mortality among critical orthopaedic trauma patients with sepsis or respiratory failure.</p>","PeriodicalId":21667,"journal":{"name":"SHOCK","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Critical Orthopaedic Trauma Patients with Sepsis Using Machine Learning Models.\",\"authors\":\"Ze Long, Shengzhi Tan, Baisheng Sun, Yong Qin, Shengjie Wang, Zhencan Han, Tao Han, Feng Lin, Mingxing Lei\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SHK.0000000000002516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Purpose: This study aims to establish and validate machine learning-based models to predict death in hospital among critical orthopaedic trauma patients with sepsis or respiratory failure.Methods: This study collected 523 patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database. All patients were randomly classified into a training cohort and a validation cohort. Six algorithms, including logistic regression (LR), extreme gradient boosting machine (eXGBM), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), neural network (NN), and decision tree (DT), were used to develop and optimize models in the training cohort, and internal validation of these models were conducted in the validation cohort. Based on a comprehensive scoring system, which incorporated ten evaluation metrics, the optimal model was obtained with the highest scores. An artificial intelligence (AI) application was deployed based on the optimal model in the study.Results: The in-hospital mortality was 19.69%. Among all developed models, the eXGBM had the highest area under the curve (AUC) value (0.951, 95%CI: 0.934-0.967), and it also showed the highest accuracy (0.902), precise (0.893), recall (0.915), and F1 score (0.904). Based on the scoring system, the eXGBM had the highest score of 53, followed by the RF model (43) and the NN model (39). The scores for the LR, SVM, and DT were 22, 36, and 17, respectively. The decision curve analysis confirmed that both the eXGBM and RF models provided substantial clinical net benefits. However, the eXGBM model consistently outperformed the RF model across multiple evaluation metrics, establishing itself as the superior option for predictive modeling in this scenario, with the RF model as a strong secondary choice. The SHAP analysis revealed that SAPS II, age, respiratory rate, OASIS, and temperature were the most important five features contributing to the outcome.Conclusions: This study develops an artificial intelligence application to predict in-hospital mortality among critical orthopaedic trauma patients with sepsis or respiratory failure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SHOCK\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SHOCK\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000002516\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SHOCK","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000002516","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要目的:本研究旨在建立并验证基于机器学习的骨科创伤重症脓毒症或呼吸衰竭患者院内死亡预测模型。方法:本研究从重症监护医学信息集市数据库中收集523例患者。所有患者随机分为训练组和验证组。在训练队列中,采用逻辑回归(LR)、极端梯度增强机(eXGBM)、支持向量机(SVM)、随机森林(RF)、神经网络(NN)和决策树(DT) 6种算法开发和优化模型,并在验证队列中对这些模型进行内部验证。在综合评分系统的基础上,采用10个评价指标,得到得分最高的最优模型。在此基础上部署了一个人工智能应用程序。结果:住院死亡率为19.69%。在所有模型中,eXGBM的曲线下面积(AUC)值最高(0.951,95%CI: 0.934-0.967),准确率最高(0.902),精密度最高(0.893),召回率最高(0.915),F1评分最高(0.904)。在评分系统中,eXGBM得分最高,为53分,其次是RF模型(43分)和NN模型(39分)。LR、SVM和DT的得分分别为22、36和17。决策曲线分析证实,eXGBM和RF模型均提供了可观的临床净收益。然而,eXGBM模型在多个评估指标上的表现始终优于RF模型,在这种情况下,它将自己确立为预测建模的优越选择,而RF模型则是一个强大的次要选择。SHAP分析显示,SAPS II、年龄、呼吸频率、OASIS和温度是影响结果的最重要的五个特征。结论:本研究开发了一种人工智能应用程序来预测骨科创伤重症脓毒症或呼吸衰竭患者的住院死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Critical Orthopaedic Trauma Patients with Sepsis Using Machine Learning Models.

Abstract: Purpose: This study aims to establish and validate machine learning-based models to predict death in hospital among critical orthopaedic trauma patients with sepsis or respiratory failure.Methods: This study collected 523 patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database. All patients were randomly classified into a training cohort and a validation cohort. Six algorithms, including logistic regression (LR), extreme gradient boosting machine (eXGBM), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), neural network (NN), and decision tree (DT), were used to develop and optimize models in the training cohort, and internal validation of these models were conducted in the validation cohort. Based on a comprehensive scoring system, which incorporated ten evaluation metrics, the optimal model was obtained with the highest scores. An artificial intelligence (AI) application was deployed based on the optimal model in the study.Results: The in-hospital mortality was 19.69%. Among all developed models, the eXGBM had the highest area under the curve (AUC) value (0.951, 95%CI: 0.934-0.967), and it also showed the highest accuracy (0.902), precise (0.893), recall (0.915), and F1 score (0.904). Based on the scoring system, the eXGBM had the highest score of 53, followed by the RF model (43) and the NN model (39). The scores for the LR, SVM, and DT were 22, 36, and 17, respectively. The decision curve analysis confirmed that both the eXGBM and RF models provided substantial clinical net benefits. However, the eXGBM model consistently outperformed the RF model across multiple evaluation metrics, establishing itself as the superior option for predictive modeling in this scenario, with the RF model as a strong secondary choice. The SHAP analysis revealed that SAPS II, age, respiratory rate, OASIS, and temperature were the most important five features contributing to the outcome.Conclusions: This study develops an artificial intelligence application to predict in-hospital mortality among critical orthopaedic trauma patients with sepsis or respiratory failure.

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
SHOCK
SHOCK 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
199
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: SHOCK®: Injury, Inflammation, and Sepsis: Laboratory and Clinical Approaches includes studies of novel therapeutic approaches, such as immunomodulation, gene therapy, nutrition, and others. The mission of the Journal is to foster and promote multidisciplinary studies, both experimental and clinical in nature, that critically examine the etiology, mechanisms and novel therapeutics of shock-related pathophysiological conditions. Its purpose is to excel as a vehicle for timely publication in the areas of basic and clinical studies of shock, trauma, sepsis, inflammation, ischemia, and related pathobiological states, with particular emphasis on the biologic mechanisms that determine the response to such injury. Making such information available will ultimately facilitate improved care of the traumatized or septic individual.
×
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