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

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器学习(ML)算法有可能增强对晕厥患者不良后果的预测。最近,梯度增强(GB)和逻辑回归(LR)模型被应用于预测晕厥发作后的这些结果,使用加拿大晕厥风险评分(CSRS)预测因子。本研究旨在对这些模型进行外部验证,并将其性能与新模型进行比较。我们纳入了意大利6家医院2015年至2017年间在急诊科评估晕厥的所有连续非低风险患者。使用先前验证的CSRS预测因子对GB和LR模型进行训练和测试。此外,最近开发的深度学习(TabPFN)和大型语言模型(TabLLM)在同一队列上进行了验证。比较各模型的曲线下面积(AUC)、Matthews相关系数(MCC)和Brier评分(BS)。共有257名患者入组,中位年龄为71岁。13%的人在30天内出现了不良结果。GB模型表现最佳,AUC为0.78,MCC为0.36,BS为0.42。与TabPFN模型相比,观察到显著的性能差异(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信