Alessandro Giaj Levra, Mauro Gatti, Roberto Mene, Dana Shiffer, Giorgio Costantino, Monica Solbiati, Raffaello Furlan, Franca Dipaola
{"title":"意大利急诊科队列中机器学习模型对晕厥短期预后预测的验证","authors":"Alessandro Giaj Levra, Mauro Gatti, Roberto Mene, Dana Shiffer, Giorgio Costantino, Monica Solbiati, Raffaello Furlan, Franca Dipaola","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-04034-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Machine learning (ML) algorithms have the potential to enhance the prediction of adverse outcomes in patients with syncope. Recently, gradient boosting (GB) and logistic regression (LR) models have been applied to predict these outcomes following a syncope episode, using the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) predictors. This study aims to externally validate these models and compare their performance with novel models. We included all consecutive non-low-risk patients evaluated in the emergency department for syncope between 2015 and 2017 at six Italian hospitals. The GB and LR models were trained and tested using previously validated CSRS predictors. Additionally, recently developed deep learning (TabPFN) and large language models (TabLLM) were validated on the same cohort. The area under the curve (AUC), Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and Brier score (BS) were compared for each model. A total of 257 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 71 years. Thirteen percent had adverse outcomes at 30 days. The GB model achieved the best performance, with an AUC of 0.78, an MCC of 0.36, and a BS of 0.42. Significant performance differences were observed compared with the TabPFN model (p < 0.01) and the TabLLM model (p = 0.01). The GB model performed only slightly better than the LR model. The predictive capability of the GB and LR models using CSRS variables was reduced when validated in an external syncope cohort characterized by a higher event rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of syncope short-term outcomes prediction by machine learning models in an Italian emergency department cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Giaj Levra, Mauro Gatti, Roberto Mene, Dana Shiffer, Giorgio Costantino, Monica Solbiati, Raffaello Furlan, Franca Dipaola\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-025-04034-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Machine learning (ML) algorithms have the potential to enhance the prediction of adverse outcomes in patients with syncope. Recently, gradient boosting (GB) and logistic regression (LR) models have been applied to predict these outcomes following a syncope episode, using the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) predictors. This study aims to externally validate these models and compare their performance with novel models. We included all consecutive non-low-risk patients evaluated in the emergency department for syncope between 2015 and 2017 at six Italian hospitals. The GB and LR models were trained and tested using previously validated CSRS predictors. Additionally, recently developed deep learning (TabPFN) and large language models (TabLLM) were validated on the same cohort. The area under the curve (AUC), Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and Brier score (BS) were compared for each model. A total of 257 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 71 years. Thirteen percent had adverse outcomes at 30 days. The GB model achieved the best performance, with an AUC of 0.78, an MCC of 0.36, and a BS of 0.42. Significant performance differences were observed compared with the TabPFN model (p < 0.01) and the TabLLM model (p = 0.01). The GB model performed only slightly better than the LR model. The predictive capability of the GB and LR models using CSRS variables was reduced when validated in an external syncope cohort characterized by a higher event rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04034-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04034-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Validation of syncope short-term outcomes prediction by machine learning models in an Italian emergency department cohort.
Machine learning (ML) algorithms have the potential to enhance the prediction of adverse outcomes in patients with syncope. Recently, gradient boosting (GB) and logistic regression (LR) models have been applied to predict these outcomes following a syncope episode, using the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) predictors. This study aims to externally validate these models and compare their performance with novel models. We included all consecutive non-low-risk patients evaluated in the emergency department for syncope between 2015 and 2017 at six Italian hospitals. The GB and LR models were trained and tested using previously validated CSRS predictors. Additionally, recently developed deep learning (TabPFN) and large language models (TabLLM) were validated on the same cohort. The area under the curve (AUC), Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and Brier score (BS) were compared for each model. A total of 257 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 71 years. Thirteen percent had adverse outcomes at 30 days. The GB model achieved the best performance, with an AUC of 0.78, an MCC of 0.36, and a BS of 0.42. Significant performance differences were observed compared with the TabPFN model (p < 0.01) and the TabLLM model (p = 0.01). The GB model performed only slightly better than the LR model. The predictive capability of the GB and LR models using CSRS variables was reduced when validated in an external syncope cohort characterized by a higher event rate.
期刊介绍:
Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.