Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33081694›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Machine learning techniques for mortality prediction in critical traumatic patients: anatomic and physiologic variables from the RETRAUCI study.

Luis Serviá, Neus Montserrat, Mariona Badia, Juan Antonio Llompart-Pou, Jesús Abelardo Barea-Mendoza, Mario Chico-Fernández, Marcelino Sánchez-Casado, José Manuel Jiménez, Dolores María Mayor, Javier Trujillano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparing machine learning algorithms for predicting COVID-19 mortality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques for Mortality Prediction in a Prospective Cohort of Older Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors.

Luis ServiáServei de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, Universitat de Lleida, IRBLleida, Avda Rovira Roure 80, 25198, Lleida, Spain.
Neus MontserratServei de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, Universitat de Lleida, IRBLleida, Avda Rovira Roure 80, 25198, Lleida, Spain.
Mariona BadiaServei de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, Universitat de Lleida, IRBLleida, Avda Rovira Roure 80, 25198, Lleida, Spain.
Juan Antonio Llompart-PouServei de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Institut de Investigació Sanitària Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Jesús Abelardo Barea-MendozaUCI de Trauma y Emergencias, Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
Mario Chico-FernándezUCI de Trauma y Emergencias, Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
Marcelino Sánchez-CasadoServicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Virgen de la Salud, Toledo, Spain.
José Manuel JiménezServicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain.
Dolores María MayorServicio de Medicina Intensiva, Complejo hospitalario de Torrecárdenas, Almería, Spain.
Javier TrujillanoServei de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, Universitat de Lleida, IRBLleida, Avda Rovira Roure 80, 25198, Lleida, Spain. jtruji@cmb.udl.es.ORCID 0000-0001-8071-7711

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterest in models for calculating the risk of death in traumatic patients admitted to ICUs remains high. These models use variables derived from the deviation of physiological parameters and/or the severity of anatomical lesions with respect to the affected body areas. Our objective is to create different predictive models of the mortality of critically traumatic patients using machine learning techniques.

methodsWe used 9625 records from the RETRAUCI database (National Trauma Registry of 52 Spanish ICUs in the period of 2015-2019). Hospital mortality was 12.6%. Data on demographic variables, affected anatomical areas and physiological repercussions were used. The Weka Platform was used, along with a ten-fold cross-validation for the construction of nine supervised algorithms: logistic regression binary (LR), neural network (NN), sequential minimal optimization (SMO), classification rules (JRip), classification trees (CT), Bayesian networks (BN), adaptive boosting (ADABOOST), bootstrap aggregating (BAGGING) and random forest (RFOREST). The performance of the models was evaluated by accuracy, specificity, precision, recall, F-measure, and AUC.

resultsIn all algorithms, the most important factors are those associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and organic failures. The LR finds thorax and limb injuries as independent protective factors of mortality. The CT generates 24 decision rules and uses those related to TBI as the first variables (range 2.0-81.6%). The JRip detects the eight rules with the highest risk of mortality (65.0-94.1%). The NN model uses a hidden layer of ten nodes, which requires 200 weights for its interpretation. The BN find the relationships between the different factors that identify different patient profiles. Models with the ensemble methodology (ADABOOST, BAGGING and RandomForest) do not have greater performance. All models obtain high values ​​in accuracy, specificity, and AUC, but obtain lower values ​​in recall. The greatest precision is achieved by the SMO model, and the BN obtains the best recall, F-measure, and AUC.

conclusionMachine learning techniques are useful for creating mortality classification models in critically traumatic patients. With clinical interpretation, the algorithms establish different patient profiles according to the relationship between the variables used, determine groups of patients with different evolutions, and alert clinicians to the presence of rules that indicate the greatest severity.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsBayes TheoremHumansLogistic ModelsIntensive care unitMachine learning techniquesMortalitySupervised algorithmsTraumatic patient

Identifiers

PMID33081694
PMCPMC7576744

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.