File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Incorporating Laboratory Values into a Machine Learning Model Improves In-Hospital Mortality Predictions after Rapid Response Team Call

TitleIncorporating Laboratory Values into a Machine Learning Model Improves In-Hospital Mortality Predictions after Rapid Response Team Call
Authors
Keywordscritical care
machine learning model
mortality
rapid response team
resuscitation
Issue Date2019
Citation
Critical Care Explorations, 2019, v. 1, n. 7, p. E0023 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: Machine learning models have been used to predict mortality among patients requiring rapid response team activation. The goal of our study was to assess the impact of adding laboratory values into the model. Design: A gradient boosted decision tree model was derived and internally validated to predict a primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. The base model was then augmented with laboratory values. Setting: Two tertiary care hospitals within The Ottawa Hospital network. Patients: Inpatients over the age of 18 years who experienced a rapid response team activation between January 1, 2015, and May 31, 2016. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 2,061 rapid response team activations occurred during the study period. The in-hospital mortality rate was 29.4%. Patients who died were older (median age, 72 vs 68 yr; p < 0.001), had a longer length of stay (length of stay) prior to rapid response team activation (4 vs 2 d; p < 0.001), and more often had respiratory distress (31% vs 22%; p < 0.001). Our base model without laboratory values performed with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.71-0.72). When the base model was augmented with laboratory values, the area under the receiver operating curve improved to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.77-0.78). Important mortality predictors in the base model were age, estimated ratio of Pao2to Fio2(calculated using oxygen saturation and estimated Fio2), length of stay prior to rapid response team activation, and systolic blood pressure. Conclusions: Machine learning models can identify rapid response team patients at a high risk of mortality and potentially supplement clinical decision making. Incorporating laboratory values into model development significantly improved predictive performance in this study.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/346986

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorReardon, Peter M.-
dc.contributor.authorParimbelli, Enea-
dc.contributor.authorWilk, Szymon-
dc.contributor.authorMichalowski, Wojtek-
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Kyle-
dc.contributor.authorShen, Jennifer-
dc.contributor.authorHerritt, Brent-
dc.contributor.authorGershkovich, Benjamin-
dc.contributor.authorTanuseputro, Peter-
dc.contributor.authorKyeremanteng, Kwadwo-
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-17T04:14:36Z-
dc.date.available2024-09-17T04:14:36Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationCritical Care Explorations, 2019, v. 1, n. 7, p. E0023-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/346986-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Machine learning models have been used to predict mortality among patients requiring rapid response team activation. The goal of our study was to assess the impact of adding laboratory values into the model. Design: A gradient boosted decision tree model was derived and internally validated to predict a primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. The base model was then augmented with laboratory values. Setting: Two tertiary care hospitals within The Ottawa Hospital network. Patients: Inpatients over the age of 18 years who experienced a rapid response team activation between January 1, 2015, and May 31, 2016. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 2,061 rapid response team activations occurred during the study period. The in-hospital mortality rate was 29.4%. Patients who died were older (median age, 72 vs 68 yr; p < 0.001), had a longer length of stay (length of stay) prior to rapid response team activation (4 vs 2 d; p < 0.001), and more often had respiratory distress (31% vs 22%; p < 0.001). Our base model without laboratory values performed with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.71-0.72). When the base model was augmented with laboratory values, the area under the receiver operating curve improved to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.77-0.78). Important mortality predictors in the base model were age, estimated ratio of Pao2to Fio2(calculated using oxygen saturation and estimated Fio2), length of stay prior to rapid response team activation, and systolic blood pressure. Conclusions: Machine learning models can identify rapid response team patients at a high risk of mortality and potentially supplement clinical decision making. Incorporating laboratory values into model development significantly improved predictive performance in this study.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofCritical Care Explorations-
dc.subjectcritical care-
dc.subjectmachine learning model-
dc.subjectmortality-
dc.subjectrapid response team-
dc.subjectresuscitation-
dc.titleIncorporating Laboratory Values into a Machine Learning Model Improves In-Hospital Mortality Predictions after Rapid Response Team Call-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/CCE.0000000000000023-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85100487538-
dc.identifier.volume1-
dc.identifier.issue7-
dc.identifier.spageE0023-
dc.identifier.epage-
dc.identifier.eissn2639-8028-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats