ArticleThe American journal of medicine2022
External Validation of a Laboratory Prediction Algorithm for the Reduction of Unnecessary Labs in the Critical Care Setting.
Article in The American journal of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- External validation of the ICU-CARB score to predict carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria carriage in critically ill patients upon ICU admission: a multicenter analysis.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024Article
- The environmental impact of laboratory measurements in high-resource ICUs.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Interventions to improve appropriateness of laboratory testing in the intensive care unit: a narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnnecessary laboratory tests contribute to iatrogenic harm and are a major source of waste in the health care system. We previously developed a machine learning algorithm to help clinicians identify unnecessary laboratory tests, but it has not been externally validated. In this study, we externally validate our machine learning algorithm.
methodsTo externally validate the machine learning algorithm that was originally trained on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) III database, we tested the algorithm in a separate institution. We identified and abstracted data for all patients older than 18 years admitted to the intensive care unit at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, Texas (MHH) from January 1, 2020 to November 13, 2020. Using the transfer learning style, we performed external validation of the machine learning algorithm.
resultsA total of 651 MHH patients were included. The model performed well in predicting abnormality (area under the curve [AUC] 0.98 for MIMIC III and 0.89 for MHH). The model performed similarly in predicting transitions from normal laboratory range to abnormal (AUC 0.71 for MIMIC III and 0.70 for MHH). The performance of the model in predicting the actual laboratory value was also similar in the MIMIC III (accuracy 0.41) and MHH data (0.45).
conclusionsWe externally validated the machine learning model and showed that the model performed similarly, supporting the generalizability to other settings. While this model demonstrated good performance for predicting abnormal labs and transitions, it does not perform well enough for prediction of laboratory values in most clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.