Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36008808›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Development and evaluation of uncertainty quantifying machine learning models to predict piperacillin plasma concentrations in critically ill patients.

Jarne Verhaeghe, Sofie A M Dhaese, Thomas De Corte, David Vander Mijnsbrugge, Heleen Aardema, Jan G Zijlstra, Alain G Verstraete, Veronique Stove, Pieter Colin, Femke Ongenae and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Review
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jarne VerhaegheIDLab, Department of Information Technology, Ghent University - imec, Ghent, Belgium. jarne.verhaeghe@ugent.be.
Sofie A M DhaeseDepartment of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Thomas De CorteDepartment of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
David Vander MijnsbruggeIDLab, Department of Information Technology, Ghent University - imec, Ghent, Belgium.
Heleen AardemaDepartment of Critical Care, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jan G ZijlstraDepartment of Critical Care, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Alain G VerstraeteDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Veronique StoveDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieter ColinDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Femke OngenaeIDLab, Department of Information Technology, Ghent University - imec, Ghent, Belgium.
Jan J De WaeleDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Sofie Van HoeckeIDLab, Department of Information Technology, Ghent University - imec, Ghent, Belgium. sofie.vanhoecke@ugent.be.
Ghent University · BEGhent University Hospital · BEUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBeta-lactam antimicrobial concentrations are frequently suboptimal in critically ill patients. Population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) modeling is the golden standard to predict drug concentrations. However, currently available PopPK models often lack predictive accuracy, making them less suited to guide dosing regimen adaptations. Furthermore, many currently developed models for clinical applications often lack uncertainty quantification. We, therefore, aimed to develop machine learning (ML) models for the prediction of piperacillin plasma concentrations while also providing uncertainty quantification with the aim of clinical practice.

methodsBlood samples for piperacillin analysis were prospectively collected from critically ill patients receiving continuous infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam. Interpretable ML models for the prediction of piperacillin concentrations were designed using CatBoost and Gaussian processes. Distribution-based Uncertainty Quantification was added to the CatBoost model using a proposed Quantile Ensemble method, useable for any model optimizing a quantile function. These models are subsequently evaluated using the distribution coverage error, a proposed interpretable uncertainty quantification calibration metric. Development and internal evaluation of the ML models were performed on the Ghent University Hospital database (752 piperacillin concentrations from 282 patients). Ensuing, ML models were compared with a published PopPK model on a database from the University Medical Centre of Groningen where a different dosing regimen is used (46 piperacillin concentrations from 15 patients.).

resultsThe best performing model was the Catboost model with an RMSE and [Formula: see text] of 31.94-0.64 and 33.53-0.60 for internal evaluation with and without previous concentration. Furthermore, the results prove the added value of the proposed Quantile Ensemble model in providing clinically useful individualized uncertainty predictions and show the limits of homoscedastic methods like Gaussian Processes in clinical applications.

conclusionsOur results show that ML models can consistently estimate piperacillin concentrations with acceptable and high predictive accuracy when identical dosing regimens as in the training data are used while providing highly relevant uncertainty predictions. However, generalization capabilities to other dosing schemes are limited. Notwithstanding, incorporating ML models in therapeutic drug monitoring programs seems definitely promising and the current work provides a basis for validating the model in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessPiperacillinAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansMachine LearningPiperacillin, Tazobactam Drug CombinationUncertaintyAnti-Bacterial AgentsPiperacillinPiperacillin, Tazobactam Drug CombinationCritically illIntensive careMachine learningPiperacillin/tazobactamPopulation pharmacokineticsTherapeutic drug monitoringUncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID36008808
PMCPMC9404625
OpenAlexW4293218931

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.