Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35238792›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2022

Predicting High Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in an Intensive Care Unit Using a Recurrent Neural Network With Transfer Learning and Input Data Perseveration: Retrospective Analysis.

George Pappy, Melissa Aczon, Randall Wetzel, David Ledbetter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Narrowing the gap: expected versus deployment performance.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

George Pappy *The Laura P. and Leland K. Whittier Virtual PICU, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0965-986X
Melissa Aczon *The Laura P. and Leland K. Whittier Virtual PICU, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3922-4733
Randall WetzelThe Laura P. and Leland K. Whittier Virtual PICU, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3950-5976
David Ledbetter *The Laura P. and Leland K. Whittier Virtual PICU, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0382-5086
Children's Hospital of Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh flow nasal cannula (HFNC) provides noninvasive respiratory support for children who are critically ill who may tolerate it more readily than other noninvasive ventilation (NIV) techniques such as bilevel positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure. Moreover, HFNC may preclude the need for mechanical ventilation (intubation). Nevertheless, NIV or intubation may ultimately be necessary for certain patients. Timely prediction of HFNC failure can provide an indication for increasing respiratory support.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to develop and compare machine learning (ML) models to predict HFNC failure.

methodsA retrospective study was conducted using the Virtual Pediatric Intensive Care Unit database of electronic medical records of patients admitted to a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit between January 2010 and February 2020. Patients aged <19 years, without apnea, and receiving HFNC treatment were included. A long short-term memory (LSTM) model using 517 variables (vital signs, laboratory data, and other clinical parameters) was trained to generate a continuous prediction of HFNC failure, defined as escalation to NIV or intubation within 24 hours of HFNC initiation. For comparison, 7 other models were trained: a logistic regression (LR) using the same 517 variables, another LR using only 14 variables, and 5 additional LSTM-based models using the same 517 variables as the first LSTM model and incorporating additional ML techniques (transfer learning, input perseveration, and ensembling). Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve at various times following HFNC initiation. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of predictions at 2 hours after HFNC initiation were also evaluated. These metrics were also computed for a cohort with primarily respiratory diagnoses.

resultsA total of 834 HFNC trials (455 [54.6%] training, 173 [20.7%] validation, and 206 [24.7%] test) met the inclusion criteria, of which 175 (21%; training: 103/455, 22.6%; validation: 30/173, 17.3%; test: 42/206, 20.4%) escalated to NIV or intubation. The LSTM models trained with transfer learning generally performed better than the LR models, with the best LSTM model achieving an AUROC of 0.78 versus 0.66 for the 14-variable LR and 0.71 for the 517-variable LR 2 hours after initiation. All models except for the 14-variable LR achieved higher AUROCs in the respiratory cohort than in the general intensive care unit population.

conclusionsML models trained using electronic medical record data were able to identify children at risk of HFNC failure within 24 hours of initiation. LSTM models that incorporated transfer learning, input data perseveration, and ensembling showed improved performance compared with the LR and standard LSTM models.

Indexed as

deep learningHFNC failurehigh flow nasal cannulainput data perseverationLSTMpredictive modelRNNtransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID35238792
PMCPMC8931642
OpenAlexW4206714484

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.