Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34103544›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Identifying and characterizing high-risk clusters in a heterogeneous ICU population with deep embedded clustering.

José Castela Forte, Galiya Yeshmagambetova, Maureen L van der Grinten, Bart Hiemstra, Thomas Kaufmann, Ruben J Eck, Frederik Keus, Anne H Epema, Marco A Wiering, Iwan C C van der Horst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 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. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Explainable hierarchical clustering for patient subtyping and risk prediction.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023
    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

10 authors.

José Castela ForteDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30.00, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.n.alves.castela.cardoso.forte@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9273-0702
Galiya YeshmagambetovaBernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maureen L van der GrintenBernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bart HiemstraDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Thomas KaufmannDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ruben J EckDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Frederik KeusDepartment of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anne H EpemaDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marco A WieringBernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Iwan C C van der HorstDepartment of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, University Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critically ill patients constitute a highly heterogeneous population, with seemingly distinct patients having similar outcomes, and patients with the same admission diagnosis having opposite clinical trajectories. We aimed to develop a machine learning methodology that identifies and provides better characterization of patient clusters at high risk of mortality and kidney injury. We analysed prospectively collected data including co-morbidities, clinical examination, and laboratory parameters from a minimally-selected population of 743 patients admitted to the ICU of a Dutch hospital between 2015 and 2017. We compared four clustering methodologies and trained a classifier to predict and validate cluster membership. The contribution of different variables to the predicted cluster membership was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations values. We found that deep embedded clustering yielded better results compared to the traditional clustering algorithms. The best cluster configuration was achieved for 6 clusters. All clusters were clinically recognizable, and differed in in-ICU, 30-day, and 90-day mortality, as well as incidence of acute kidney injury. We identified two high mortality risk clusters with at least 60%, 40%, and 30% increased. ICU, 30-day and 90-day mortality, and a low risk cluster with 25-56% lower mortality risk. This machine learning methodology combining deep embedded clustering and variable importance analysis, which we made publicly available, is a possible solution to challenges previously encountered by clustering analyses in heterogeneous patient populations and may help improve the characterization of risk groups in critical care.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessIntensive Care UnitsAcute Kidney InjuryAgedAlgorithmsCluster AnalysisComorbidityCritical CareFemaleHemodynamicsHospitalizationHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMachine LearningMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID34103544
PMCPMC8187398

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.