Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32968811›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

Risk prediction of delirium in hospitalized patients using machine learning: An implementation and prospective evaluation study.

Stefanie Jauk, Diether Kramer, Birgit Großauer, Susanne Rienmüller, Alexander Avian, Andrea Berghold, Werner Leodolter, Stefan Schulz

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Clinical evaluation of a machine learning-based dysphagia risk prediction tool.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stefanie JaukDepartment of Information and Process Management, Steiermärkische Krankenanstaltengesellschaft m.b.H. (KAGes), Graz, Austria.
Diether KramerDepartment of Information and Process Management, Steiermärkische Krankenanstaltengesellschaft m.b.H. (KAGes), Graz, Austria.
Birgit GroßauerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Steiermärkische Krankenanstaltengesellschaft m.b.H. (KAGes) LKH Graz II, Graz, Austria.
Susanne RienmüllerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Steiermärkische Krankenanstaltengesellschaft m.b.H. (KAGes) LKH Graz II, Graz, Austria.
Alexander AvianInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Andrea BergholdInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Werner LeodolterDepartment of Information and Process Management, Steiermärkische Krankenanstaltengesellschaft m.b.H. (KAGes), Graz, Austria.
Stefan SchulzInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMachine learning models trained on electronic health records have achieved high prognostic accuracy in test datasets, but little is known about their embedding into clinical workflows. We implemented a random forest-based algorithm to identify hospitalized patients at high risk for delirium, and evaluated its performance in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND

methodsDelirium was predicted at admission and recalculated on the evening of admission. The defined prediction outcome was a delirium coded for the recent hospital stay. During 7 months of prospective evaluation, 5530 predictions were analyzed. In addition, 119 predictions for internal medicine patients were compared with ratings of clinical experts in a blinded and nonblinded setting.

resultsDuring clinical application, the algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 74.1% and a specificity of 82.2%. Discrimination on prospective data (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve = 0.86) was as good as in the test dataset, but calibration was poor. The predictions correlated strongly with delirium risk perceived by experts in the blinded (r = 0.81) and nonblinded (r = 0.62) settings. A major advantage of our setting was the timely prediction without additional data entry. DISCUSSION: The implemented machine learning algorithm achieved a stable performance predicting delirium in high agreement with expert ratings, but improvement of calibration is needed. Future research should evaluate the acceptance of implemented machine learning algorithms by health professionals.

conclusionsOur study provides new insights into the implementation process of a machine learning algorithm into a clinical workflow and demonstrates its predictive power for delirium.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDeliriumMachine LearningAgedAged, 80 and overElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveWorkflowclinical decision supportdeliriumelectronic health recordsMachine learningprospective studies

Identifiers

PMID32968811
PMCPMC7647341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.