Alistair Wardrope, Melloney Ferrar, Steve Goodacre, Daniel Habershon, Timothy J Heaton, Stephen J Howell, Markus Reuber
{"title":"机器学习临床决策辅助对短暂性意识丧失鉴别诊断的验证。","authors":"Alistair Wardrope, Melloney Ferrar, Steve Goodacre, Daniel Habershon, Timothy J Heaton, Stephen J Howell, Markus Reuber","doi":"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to develop and validate a machine-learning classifier based on patient and witness questionnaires to support differential diagnosis of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) at first presentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We prospectively recruited patients newly presenting with TLOC to an emergency department, an acute medical unit, and a first seizure or syncope clinic. We invited participants to complete an online questionnaire, either at home or at time of initial assessment. Two expert raters determined the cause of participants' TLOC after 6-month follow-up. We used independent development and validation samples to train a random forest classifier to predict diagnosis from participants' questionnaire responses and validate classifier performance. We compared classifier performance against penalized linear regression and referrer diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 178 participants in the final analysis, of whom 46 identified a witness able to complete an additional witness questionnaire. Given low witness recruitment, we developed a classifier based on patient answers only. A classifier trained on 9 items correctly identified 63 of 78 diagnoses (80.8%) (95% CI 70.0-88.5), an increase over the accuracy of initial assessing clinicians who were only able to diagnose 70.5% correctly. Within this, 96% (87.0%-99.4%) of those expertly rated as having syncope were correctly classified by the classifier (classifier sensitivity); 40% (20%-63.6%) of those expertly rated after follow-up as having either epilepsy or functional/dissociative seizures were similarly classified as being nonsyncope (classifier specificity).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A machine-learning classifier for differential diagnosis of TLOC has comparable performance in differentiating between 3 main causes of primary TLOC as the current standard of care but is insufficiently accurate in its current form to warrant incorporation into routine care. A system including information from witnesses might improve classification performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":19136,"journal":{"name":"Neurology. Clinical practice","volume":"15 2","pages":"e200448"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11975300/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of a Machine-Learning Clinical Decision Aid for the Differential Diagnosis of Transient Loss of Consciousness.\",\"authors\":\"Alistair Wardrope, Melloney Ferrar, Steve Goodacre, Daniel Habershon, Timothy J Heaton, Stephen J Howell, Markus Reuber\",\"doi\":\"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to develop and validate a machine-learning classifier based on patient and witness questionnaires to support differential diagnosis of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) at first presentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We prospectively recruited patients newly presenting with TLOC to an emergency department, an acute medical unit, and a first seizure or syncope clinic. We invited participants to complete an online questionnaire, either at home or at time of initial assessment. Two expert raters determined the cause of participants' TLOC after 6-month follow-up. We used independent development and validation samples to train a random forest classifier to predict diagnosis from participants' questionnaire responses and validate classifier performance. We compared classifier performance against penalized linear regression and referrer diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 178 participants in the final analysis, of whom 46 identified a witness able to complete an additional witness questionnaire. Given low witness recruitment, we developed a classifier based on patient answers only. A classifier trained on 9 items correctly identified 63 of 78 diagnoses (80.8%) (95% CI 70.0-88.5), an increase over the accuracy of initial assessing clinicians who were only able to diagnose 70.5% correctly. Within this, 96% (87.0%-99.4%) of those expertly rated as having syncope were correctly classified by the classifier (classifier sensitivity); 40% (20%-63.6%) of those expertly rated after follow-up as having either epilepsy or functional/dissociative seizures were similarly classified as being nonsyncope (classifier specificity).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A machine-learning classifier for differential diagnosis of TLOC has comparable performance in differentiating between 3 main causes of primary TLOC as the current standard of care but is insufficiently accurate in its current form to warrant incorporation into routine care. A system including information from witnesses might improve classification performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology. Clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"e200448\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11975300/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology. Clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200448\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology. Clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的:本研究的目的是开发和验证基于患者和证人问卷的机器学习分类器,以支持首次出现的短暂性意识丧失(TLOC)的鉴别诊断。方法:我们前瞻性地招募了在急诊科、急症医疗单位和首次发作或晕厥诊所就诊的TLOC新患者。我们邀请参与者在家中或在初始评估时完成一份在线问卷。经过6个月的随访,两名专家评估师确定了参与者TLOC的原因。我们使用独立的开发和验证样本来训练随机森林分类器,以预测参与者的问卷回答并验证分类器的性能。我们比较了分类器对惩罚线性回归和转诊诊断的性能。结果:我们在最终分析中纳入了178名参与者,其中46名确定了能够完成额外证人问卷的证人。鉴于证人招募率低,我们仅基于患者回答开发了一个分类器。在9个项目上训练的分类器正确识别了78个诊断中的63个(80.8%)(95% CI 70.0-88.5),比最初评估的临床医生的准确性提高了,后者只能正确诊断70.5%。其中,96%(87.0%-99.4%)的专家评定为晕厥的患者被分类器正确分类(分类器敏感性);40%(20%-63.6%)在随访后被专家评定为癫痫或功能性/解离性癫痫发作的患者同样被归类为非晕厥(分类特异性)。讨论:用于TLOC鉴别诊断的机器学习分类器在区分原发性TLOC的3种主要原因方面具有相当的性能,作为目前的护理标准,但目前的形式不够准确,不足以纳入常规护理。一个包含证人信息的系统可能会改善分类工作。
Validation of a Machine-Learning Clinical Decision Aid for the Differential Diagnosis of Transient Loss of Consciousness.
Background and objectives: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a machine-learning classifier based on patient and witness questionnaires to support differential diagnosis of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) at first presentation.
Methods: We prospectively recruited patients newly presenting with TLOC to an emergency department, an acute medical unit, and a first seizure or syncope clinic. We invited participants to complete an online questionnaire, either at home or at time of initial assessment. Two expert raters determined the cause of participants' TLOC after 6-month follow-up. We used independent development and validation samples to train a random forest classifier to predict diagnosis from participants' questionnaire responses and validate classifier performance. We compared classifier performance against penalized linear regression and referrer diagnosis.
Results: We included 178 participants in the final analysis, of whom 46 identified a witness able to complete an additional witness questionnaire. Given low witness recruitment, we developed a classifier based on patient answers only. A classifier trained on 9 items correctly identified 63 of 78 diagnoses (80.8%) (95% CI 70.0-88.5), an increase over the accuracy of initial assessing clinicians who were only able to diagnose 70.5% correctly. Within this, 96% (87.0%-99.4%) of those expertly rated as having syncope were correctly classified by the classifier (classifier sensitivity); 40% (20%-63.6%) of those expertly rated after follow-up as having either epilepsy or functional/dissociative seizures were similarly classified as being nonsyncope (classifier specificity).
Discussion: A machine-learning classifier for differential diagnosis of TLOC has comparable performance in differentiating between 3 main causes of primary TLOC as the current standard of care but is insufficiently accurate in its current form to warrant incorporation into routine care. A system including information from witnesses might improve classification performance.
期刊介绍:
Neurology® Genetics is an online open access journal publishing peer-reviewed reports in the field of neurogenetics. The journal publishes original articles in all areas of neurogenetics including rare and common genetic variations, genotype-phenotype correlations, outlier phenotypes as a result of mutations in known disease genes, and genetic variations with a putative link to diseases. Articles include studies reporting on genetic disease risk, pharmacogenomics, and results of gene-based clinical trials (viral, ASO, etc.). Genetically engineered model systems are not a primary focus of Neurology® Genetics, but studies using model systems for treatment trials, including well-powered studies reporting negative results, are welcome.