Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37923292›Full record

ArticleChest2024

Application of Machine Learning Models to Biomedical and Information System Signals From Critically Ill Adults.

Craig M Lilly, David Kirk, Itai M Pessach, Gurudev Lotun, Ofer Chen, Ari Lipsky, Iris Lieder, Gershon Celniker, Eric W Cucchi, James M Blum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Craig M LillyDepartment of Medicine, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA; UMass Memorial Health, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA; Department of Anesthesiology and Surgery, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA; University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA; Clinical and Population Health Research Program, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA. Electronic address: craig.lilly@umassmed.edu.
David KirkWakeMed Health & Hospitals, Raleigh/Cary, NC.
Itai M PessachThe Chaim Sheba Medical Center and Tel-Aviv University, Tel Hashomer, Israel; Clew Medical, Netanya, Israel.
Gurudev LotunUMass Memorial Health, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA.
Ofer ChenClew Medical, Netanya, Israel.
Ari LipskyThe Chaim Sheba Medical Center and Tel-Aviv University, Tel Hashomer, Israel; Department of Emergency Medicine, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Iris LiederClew Medical, Netanya, Israel.
Gershon CelnikerClew Medical, Netanya, Israel.
Eric W CucchiUMass Memorial Health, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA.
James M BlumDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML)-derived notifications for impending episodes of hemodynamic instability and respiratory failure events are interesting because they can alert physicians in time to intervene before these complications occur. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do ML alerts, telemedicine system (TS)-generated alerts, or biomedical monitors (BMs) have superior performance for predicting episodes of intubation or administration of vasopressors? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsAn ML algorithm was trained to predict intubation and vasopressor initiation events among critically ill adults. Its performance was compared with BM alarms and TS alerts.

resultsML notifications were substantially more accurate and precise, with 50-fold lower alarm burden than TS alerts for predicting vasopressor initiation and intubation events. ML notifications of internal validation cohorts demonstrated similar performance for independent academic medical center external validation and COVID-19 cohorts. Characteristics were also measured for a control group of recent patients that validated event detection methods and compared TS alert and BM alarm performance. The TS test characteristics were substantially better, with 10-fold less alarm burden than BM alarms. The accuracy of ML alerts (0.87-0.94) was in the range of other clinically actionable tests; the accuracy of TS (0.28-0.53) and BM (0.019-0.028) alerts were not. Overall test performance (F scores) for ML notifications were more than fivefold higher than for TS alerts, which were higher than those of BM alarms.

interpretationML-derived notifications for clinically actioned hemodynamic instability and respiratory failure events represent an advance because the magnitude of the differences of accuracy, precision, misclassification rate, and pre-event lead time is large enough to allow more proactive care and has markedly lower frequency and interruption of bedside physician work flows.

Indexed as

COVID-19Critical IllnessMachine LearningAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicSARS-CoV-2TelemedicineVasoconstrictor AgentsVasoconstrictor Agentsalarmalertcritical carepatient monitoringqualitysafety

Identifiers

PMID37923292
PMCPMC11214904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.