基于机器学习的脓毒症患者死亡率预测模型比较

Q2 Medicine
Ziyang Wang , Yushan Lan , Zidu Xu, Yaowen Gu, Jiao Li
{"title":"基于机器学习的脓毒症患者死亡率预测模型比较","authors":"Ziyang Wang ,&nbsp;Yushan Lan ,&nbsp;Zidu Xu,&nbsp;Yaowen Gu,&nbsp;Jiao Li","doi":"10.24920/004102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the performance of five machine learning models and SAPS II score in predicting the 30-day mortality amongst patients with sepsis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The sepsis patient-related data were extracted from the MIMIC-IV database. Clinical features were generated and selected by mutual information and grid search. Logistic regression, Random forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, and other machine learning models were constructed to predict the mortality probability. Five measurements including accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and area under curve (AUC) were acquired for model evaluation. An external validation was implemented to avoid conclusion bias.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>LightGBM outperformed other methods, achieving the highest AUC (0.900), accuracy (0.808), and precision (0.SS9). All machine learning models performed better than SAPS II score (AUC=0.748). LightGBM achieved 0.883 in AUC in the external data validation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The machine learning models are more effective in predicting the 30-day mortality of patients with sepsis than the traditional SAPS II score.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35615,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Medical Sciences Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Mortality Predictive Models of Sepsis Patients Based on Machine Learning\",\"authors\":\"Ziyang Wang ,&nbsp;Yushan Lan ,&nbsp;Zidu Xu,&nbsp;Yaowen Gu,&nbsp;Jiao Li\",\"doi\":\"10.24920/004102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the performance of five machine learning models and SAPS II score in predicting the 30-day mortality amongst patients with sepsis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The sepsis patient-related data were extracted from the MIMIC-IV database. Clinical features were generated and selected by mutual information and grid search. Logistic regression, Random forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, and other machine learning models were constructed to predict the mortality probability. Five measurements including accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and area under curve (AUC) were acquired for model evaluation. An external validation was implemented to avoid conclusion bias.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>LightGBM outperformed other methods, achieving the highest AUC (0.900), accuracy (0.808), and precision (0.SS9). All machine learning models performed better than SAPS II score (AUC=0.748). LightGBM achieved 0.883 in AUC in the external data validation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The machine learning models are more effective in predicting the 30-day mortality of patients with sepsis than the traditional SAPS II score.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Medical Sciences Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Medical Sciences Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S100192942200044X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Medical Sciences Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S100192942200044X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较五种机器学习模型和SAPS II评分在脓毒症患者30天死亡率预测中的表现。方法从MIMIC-IV数据库中提取脓毒症患者相关数据。通过互信息和网格搜索生成和选择临床特征。构建Logistic回归、Random forest、LightGBM、XGBoost等机器学习模型预测死亡概率。对模型进行了准确度、精密度、召回率、F1评分和曲线下面积(AUC)五项测量。为了避免结论偏倚,进行了外部验证。结果slightgbm方法的AUC(0.900)、准确度(0.808)和精密度(0.SS9)均优于其他方法。所有机器学习模型均优于SAPS II评分(AUC=0.748)。LightGBM在外部数据验证中AUC达到0.883。结论机器学习模型在预测败血症患者30天死亡率方面比传统的SAPS II评分更有效。
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 Mortality Predictive Models of Sepsis Patients Based on Machine Learning

Objective

To compare the performance of five machine learning models and SAPS II score in predicting the 30-day mortality amongst patients with sepsis.

Methods

The sepsis patient-related data were extracted from the MIMIC-IV database. Clinical features were generated and selected by mutual information and grid search. Logistic regression, Random forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, and other machine learning models were constructed to predict the mortality probability. Five measurements including accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and area under curve (AUC) were acquired for model evaluation. An external validation was implemented to avoid conclusion bias.

Results

LightGBM outperformed other methods, achieving the highest AUC (0.900), accuracy (0.808), and precision (0.SS9). All machine learning models performed better than SAPS II score (AUC=0.748). LightGBM achieved 0.883 in AUC in the external data validation.

Conclusions

The machine learning models are more effective in predicting the 30-day mortality of patients with sepsis than the traditional SAPS II score.

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
Chinese Medical Sciences Journal
Chinese Medical Sciences Journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1275
×
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