Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646095›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2018

Development and Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Model to Estimate Delirium Risk in Newly Hospitalized Patients Without Known Cognitive Impairment.

Andrew Wong, Albert T Young, April S Liang, Ralph Gonzales, Vanja C Douglas, Dexter Hadley

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing 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

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

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrew WongSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Albert T YoungSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
April S LiangSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Ralph GonzalesClinical Innovation Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Vanja C DouglasDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco.
Dexter HadleyInstitute for Computational Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Current methods for identifying hospitalized patients at increased risk of delirium require nurse-administered questionnaires with moderate accuracy. Objective: To develop and validate a machine learning model that predicts incident delirium risk based on electronic health data available on admission. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study evaluating 5 machine learning algorithms to predict delirium using 796 clinical variables identified by an expert panel as relevant to delirium prediction and consistently available in electronic health records within 24 hours of admission. The training set comprised 14 227 adult patients with non-intensive care unit hospital stays and no delirium on admission who were discharged between January 1, 2016, and August 31, 2017, from UCSF Health, a large academic health institution. The test set comprised 3996 patients with hospital stays who were discharged between August 1, 2017, and November 30, 2017. Exposures: Patient demographic characteristics, diagnoses, nursing records, laboratory results, and medications available in electronic health records during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Delirium was defined as a positive Nursing Delirium Screening Scale or Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit score. Models were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared against the 4-point scoring system AWOL (age >79 years, failure to spell world backward, disorientation to place, and higher nurse-rated illness severity), a validated delirium risk-assessment tool routinely administered in this cohort. Results: The training set included 14 227 patients (5113 [35.9%] aged >64 years; 7335 [51.6%] female; 687 [4.8%] with delirium), and the test set included 3996 patients (1491 [37.3%] aged >64 years; 1966 [49.2%] female; 191 [4.8%] with delirium). In total, the analysis included 18 223 hospital admissions (6604 [36.2%] aged >64 years; 9301 [51.0%] female; 878 [4.8%] with delirium). The AWOL system achieved a baseline AUC of 0.678. The gradient boosting machine model performed best, with an AUC of 0.855. Setting specificity at 90%, the model had a 59.7% (95% CI, 52.4%-66.7%) sensitivity, 23.1% (95% CI, 20.5%-25.9%) positive predictive value, 97.8% (95% CI, 97.4%-98.1%) negative predictive value, and a number needed to screen of 4.8. Penalized logistic regression and random forest models also performed well, with AUCs of 0.854 and 0.848, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Machine learning can be used to estimate hospital-acquired delirium risk using electronic health record data available within 24 hours of hospital admission. Such a model may allow more precise targeting of delirium prevention resources without increasing the burden on health care professionals.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHospitalizationMachine LearningModels, EducationalAdolescentAdultAgedCognitive DysfunctionCohort StudiesDeliriumFemaleForecastingHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30646095
PMCPMC6324291

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.