Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30427913›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Optimal intensive care outcome prediction over time using machine learning.

Christopher Meiring, Abhishek Dixit, Steve Harris, Niall S MacCallum, David A Brealey, Peter J Watkinson, Andrew Jones, Simon Ashworth, Richard Beale, Stephen J Brett and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Hierarchical Poincaré analysis for anaesthesia monitoring.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Machine Learning for Benchmarking Critical Care Outcomes.Healthcare informatics research · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Christopher MeiringDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7758-0715
Abhishek DixitDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Steve HarrisBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4982-1374
Niall S MacCallumBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
David A BrealeyBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1982-3379
Peter J WatkinsonNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Andrew JonesDepartment of Intensive Care, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, St. Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, Lambeth, London.
Simon AshworthCentre for Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care Research, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Praed St., London, United Kingdom.
Richard BealeDepartment of Intensive Care, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, St. Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, Lambeth, London.
Stephen J BrettCentre for Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care Research, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Praed St., London, United Kingdom.
Mervyn SingerBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1042-6350
Ari ErcoleDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognostication is an essential tool for risk adjustment and decision making in the intensive care unit (ICU). Research into prognostication in ICU has so far been limited to data from admission or the first 24 hours. Most ICU admissions last longer than this, decisions are made throughout an admission, and some admissions are explicitly intended as time-limited prognostic trials. Despite this, temporal changes in prognostic ability during ICU admission has received little attention to date. Current predictive models, in the form of prognostic clinical tools, are typically derived from linear models and do not explicitly handle incremental information from trends. Machine learning (ML) allows predictive models to be developed which use non-linear predictors and complex interactions between variables, thus allowing incorporation of trends in measured variables over time; this has made it possible to investigate prognosis throughout an admission. METHODS AND

findingsThis study uses ML to assess the predictability of ICU mortality as a function of time. Logistic regression against physiological data alone outperformed APACHE-II and demonstrated several important interactions including between lactate & noradrenaline dose, between lactate & MAP, and between age & MAP consistent with the current sepsis definitions. ML models consistently outperformed logistic regression with Deep Learning giving the best results. Predictive power was maximal on the second day and was further improved by incorporating trend data. Using a limited range of physiological and demographic variables, the best machine learning model on the first day showed an area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.883 (σ = 0.008), compared to 0.846 (σ = 0.010) for a logistic regression from the same predictors and 0.836 (σ = 0.007) for a logistic regression based on the APACHE-II score. Adding information gathered on the second day of admission improved the maximum AUC to 0.895 (σ = 0.008). Beyond the second day, predictive ability declined.

conclusionThis has implications for decision making in intensive care and provides a justification for time-limited trials of ICU therapy; the assessment of prognosis over more than one day may be a valuable strategy as new information on the second day helps to differentiate outcomes. New ML models based on trend data beyond the first day could greatly improve upon current risk stratification tools.

Indexed as

Critical CareDecision Support Systems, ClinicalMachine LearningAgedAPACHEClinical Decision-MakingDatasets as TopicFeasibility StudiesFemaleHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Admission

Identifiers

PMID30427913
PMCPMC6241126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.