Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33078300›Full record

Observational studyJournal of general internal medicine2021

Machine Learning to Develop and Internally Validate a Predictive Model for Post-operative Delirium in a Prospective, Observational Clinical Cohort Study of Older Surgical Patients.

Annie M Racine, Douglas Tommet, Madeline L D'Aquila, Tamara G Fong, Yun Gou, Patricia A Tabloski, Eran D Metzger, Tammy T Hshieh, Eva M Schmitt, Sarinnapha M Vasunilashorn and 12 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

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

22 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Annie M RacineAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Douglas TommetDepartment of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, and Neurology, Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI, USA.
Madeline L D'AquilaAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Tamara G FongAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Yun GouAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Patricia A TabloskiWilliam F Connell School of Nursing at Boston College, Boston, MA, USA.
Eran D MetzgerHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Tammy T HshiehHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Eva M SchmittAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Sarinnapha M VasunilashornHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Lisa KunzeHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kamen VlassakovHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ayesha AbdeenHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeffrey LangeHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Brandon EarpHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Bradford C DickersonDepartment of Neurology and Massachusetts Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Edward R MarcantonioAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Jon SteingrimssonDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Thomas G TravisonAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Sharon K InouyeAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Richard N JonesDepartment of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, and Neurology, Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI, USA. Richard_Jones@Brown.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1049-218X
, the RISE Study Group
Boston College · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBrown University · USHarvard University · USInstitute on Aging · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

The Role of Inflammation in the Pathophysiology of Delirium and its Associated Long-Term Cognitive DeclineP01AG031720 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI SHAFI, MOUHSIN · 2010 to 2022
$26.7M
READI-SET-GO: Researching Efficient Approaches to Delirium Identification - Sustaining Effective Translation to create Gero-friendly OrganizationsR01AG030618 · NIA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI DONNA Marie FICK, EDWARD R MARCANTONIO · 2008 to 2026
$7.9M
Translational Researchin Aging Trainnig ProgramT32AG023480 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI LIPSITZ, LEWIS · 2004 to 2024
$7.6M
Development and Validation of a Delirium Severity ToolkitR01AG044518 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI INOUYE, SHARON K., JONES, RICHARD N · 2014 to 2024
$7.3M
Supplement to Network for Investigation of Delirium across the U.S (NIDUS)R24AG054259 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI INOUYE, SHARON K. · 2016 to 2020
$4.3M
Mid-Career Mentoring Award for Patient-Oriented Research in AgingK24AG035075 · NIA · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI MARCANTONIO, EDWARD R · 2010 to 2021
$1.9M
K07 Leadership GrantK07AG041835 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI INOUYE, SHARON K. · 2013 to 2017
$656k
Shared Pathophysiology of Postoperative Delirium and Alzheimer’s Disease and Related DementiasK01AG057836 · NIA · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI VASUNILASHORN, SARINNAPHA · 2018 to 2022
$565k
Genetic and Neuroinflammatory Mechanisms of Delirium and Alzheimer’s Disease and Related DementiasR03AG061582 · NIA · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI VASUNILASHORN, SARINNAPHA · 2019 to 2020
$175k
Alzheimer's Association AARF-18-560786NIA NIH HHS K01 AG057836NIA NIH HHS K01AG057836NIA NIH HHS K07 AG041835NIA NIH HHS K07AG041835NIA NIH HHS K24 AG035075NIA NIH HHS K24AG035075NIA NIH HHS P01 AG031720NIA NIH HHS P01AG031720NIA NIH HHS R01AG03061NIA NIH HHS R01AG04451NIA NIH HHS R01 AG044518NIA NIH HHS R03 AG061582NIA NIH HHS R03AG061582NIA NIH HHS R24 AG054259NIA NIH HHS R24AG054259NIA NIH HHS T32 AG023480NIA NIH HHS T32AG023480
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur objective was to assess the performance of machine learning methods to predict post-operative delirium using a prospective clinical cohort.

methodsWe analyzed data from an observational cohort study of 560 older adults (≥ 70 years) without dementia undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery. Post-operative delirium was determined by the Confusion Assessment Method supplemented by a medical chart review (N = 134, 24%). Five machine learning algorithms and a standard stepwise logistic regression model were developed in a training sample (80% of participants) and evaluated in the remaining hold-out testing sample. We evaluated three overlapping feature sets, restricted to variables that are readily available or minimally burdensome to collect in clinical settings, including interview and medical record data. A large feature set included 71 potential predictors. A smaller set of 18 features was selected by an expert panel using a consensus process, and this smaller feature set was considered with and without a measure of pre-operative mental status.

resultsThe area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was higher in the large feature set conditions (range of AUC, 0.62-0.71 across algorithms) versus the selected feature set conditions (AUC range, 0.53-0.57). The restricted feature set with mental status had intermediate AUC values (range, 0.53-0.68). In the full feature set condition, algorithms such as gradient boosting, cross-validated logistic regression, and neural network (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.83) were comparable with a model developed using traditional stepwise logistic regression (AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82). Calibration for all models and feature sets was poor.

conclusionsWe developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. Delirium proved to be a phenotype that was difficult to predict with appreciable accuracy.

Indexed as

DeliriumMachine LearningAgedCohort StudiesHumansLogistic ModelsProspective Studiesdeliriummachine learningmodel predictionpost-operativestatistical learning

Identifiers

PMID33078300
PMCPMC7878663
OpenAlexW3092875415

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.