Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30481172›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2018

Development and validation of machine learning models to identify high-risk surgical patients using automatically curated electronic health record data (Pythia): A retrospective, single-site study.

Kristin M Corey, Sehj Kashyap, Elizabeth Lorenzi, Sandhya A Lagoo-Deenadayalan, Katherine Heller, Krista Whalen, Suresh Balu, Mitchell T Heflin, Shelley R McDonald, Madhav Swaminathan and 1 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Kristin M CoreyDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7158-1215
Sehj KashyapDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Elizabeth LorenziDepartment of Statistical Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7259-2696
Sandhya A Lagoo-DeenadayalanDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Katherine HellerDepartment of Statistical Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4848-7466
Krista WhalenDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Suresh BaluDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4929-9130
Mitchell T HeflinDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Shelley R McDonaldDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7157-7638
Madhav SwaminathanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9136-8609
Mark SendakDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPythia is an automated, clinically curated surgical data pipeline and repository housing all surgical patient electronic health record (EHR) data from a large, quaternary, multisite health institute for data science initiatives. In an effort to better identify high-risk surgical patients from complex data, a machine learning project trained on Pythia was built to predict postoperative complication risk. METHODS AND

findingsA curated data repository of surgical outcomes was created using automated SQL and R code that extracted and processed patient clinical and surgical data across 37 million clinical encounters from the EHRs. A total of 194 clinical features including patient demographics (e.g., age, sex, race), smoking status, medications, comorbidities, procedure information, and proxies for surgical complexity were constructed and aggregated. A cohort of 66,370 patients that had undergone 99,755 invasive procedural encounters between January 1, 2014, and January 31, 2017, was studied further for the purpose of predicting postoperative complications. The average complication and 30-day postoperative mortality rates of this cohort were 16.0% and 0.51%, respectively. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (lasso) penalized logistic regression, random forest models, and extreme gradient boosted decision trees were trained on this surgical cohort with cross-validation on 14 specific postoperative outcome groupings. Resulting models had area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.747 and 0.924, calculated on an out-of-sample test set from the last 5 months of data. Lasso penalized regression was identified as a high-performing model, providing clinically interpretable actionable insights. Highest and lowest performing lasso models predicted postoperative shock and genitourinary outcomes with AUCs of 0.924 (95% CI: 0.901, 0.946) and 0.780 (95% CI: 0.752, 0.810), respectively. A calculator requiring input of 9 data fields was created to produce a risk assessment for the 14 groupings of postoperative outcomes. A high-risk threshold (15% risk of any complication) was determined to identify high-risk surgical patients. The model sensitivity was 76%, with a specificity of 76%. Compared to heuristics that identify high-risk patients developed by clinical experts and the ACS NSQIP calculator, this tool performed superiorly, providing an improved approach for clinicians to estimate postoperative risk for patients. Limitations of this study include the missingness of data that were removed for analysis.

conclusionsExtracting and curating a large, local institution's EHR data for machine learning purposes resulted in models with strong predictive performance. These models can be used in clinical settings as decision support tools for identification of high-risk patients as well as patient evaluation and care management. Further work is necessary to evaluate the impact of the Pythia risk calculator within the clinical workflow on postoperative outcomes and to optimize this data flow for future machine learning efforts.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMachine LearningAdolescentAdultAgedAutomationComorbidityData MiningFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30481172
PMCPMC6258507

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.