Tessy Badriyah1, James S Briggs1, Paul Meredith2, Stuart W Jarvis1, Paul E Schmidt3, Peter I Featherstone3, David R Prytherch3, Gary B Smith4. 1. Centre for Healthcare Modelling and Informatics, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. 2. Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK. 3. Centre for Healthcare Modelling and Informatics, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK; Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK. 4. School of Health and Social Care, University of Bournemouth, Bournemouth, UK. Electronic address: gbsresearch@virginmedia.com.
Abstract
AIM OF STUDY: To compare the performance of a human-generated, trial and error-optimised early warning score (EWS), i.e., National Early Warning Score (NEWS), with one generated entirely algorithmically using Decision Tree (DT) analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used DT analysis to construct a decision-tree EWS (DTEWS) from a database of 198,755 vital signs observation sets collected from 35,585 consecutive, completed acute medical admissions. We evaluated the ability of DTEWS to discriminate patients at risk of cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission or death, each within 24h of a given vital signs observation. We compared the performance of DTEWS and NEWS using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. RESULTS: The structures of DTEWS and NEWS were very similar. The AUROC (95% CI) for DTEWS for cardiac arrest, unanticipated ICU admission, death, and any of the outcomes, all within 24h, were 0.708 (0.669-0.747), 0.862 (0.852-0.872), 0.899 (0.892-0.907), and 0.877 (0.870-0.883), respectively. Values for NEWS were 0.722 (0.685-0.759) [cardiac arrest], 0.857 (0.847-0.868) [unanticipated ICU admission}, 0.894 (0.887-0.902) [death], and 0.873 (0.866-0.879) [any outcome]. CONCLUSIONS: The decision-tree technique independently validates the composition and weightings of NEWS. The DT approach quickly provided an almost identical EWS to NEWS, although one that admittedly would benefit from fine-tuning using clinical knowledge. We believe that DT analysis could be used to quickly develop candidate models for disease-specific EWSs, which may be required in future.
AIM OF STUDY: To compare the performance of a human-generated, trial and error-optimised early warning score (EWS), i.e., National Early Warning Score (NEWS), with one generated entirely algorithmically using Decision Tree (DT) analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used DT analysis to construct a decision-tree EWS (DTEWS) from a database of 198,755 vital signs observation sets collected from 35,585 consecutive, completed acute medical admissions. We evaluated the ability of DTEWS to discriminate patients at risk of cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission or death, each within 24h of a given vital signs observation. We compared the performance of DTEWS and NEWS using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. RESULTS: The structures of DTEWS and NEWS were very similar. The AUROC (95% CI) for DTEWS for cardiac arrest, unanticipated ICU admission, death, and any of the outcomes, all within 24h, were 0.708 (0.669-0.747), 0.862 (0.852-0.872), 0.899 (0.892-0.907), and 0.877 (0.870-0.883), respectively. Values for NEWS were 0.722 (0.685-0.759) [cardiac arrest], 0.857 (0.847-0.868) [unanticipated ICU admission}, 0.894 (0.887-0.902) [death], and 0.873 (0.866-0.879) [any outcome]. CONCLUSIONS: The decision-tree technique independently validates the composition and weightings of NEWS. The DT approach quickly provided an almost identical EWS to NEWS, although one that admittedly would benefit from fine-tuning using clinical knowledge. We believe that DT analysis could be used to quickly develop candidate models for disease-specific EWSs, which may be required in future.
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Trevor C Yuen; Christopher Winslow; David O Meltzer; Michael W Kattan; Dana P Edelson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Abi Beane; Ambepitiyawaduge Pubudu De Silva; Nirodha De Silva; Jayasingha A Sujeewa; R M Dhanapala Rathnayake; P Chathurani Sigera; Priyantha Lakmini Athapattu; Palitha G Mahipala; Aasiyah Rashan; Sithum Bandara Munasinghe; Kosala Saroj Amarasiri Jayasinghe; Arjen M Dondorp; Rashan Haniffa Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Stephen Gerry; Timothy Bonnici; Jacqueline Birks; Shona Kirtley; Pradeep S Virdee; Peter J Watkinson; Gary S Collins Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-05-20
Authors: Sara Graziadio; Rachel Amie O'Leary; Deborah D Stocken; Michael Power; A Joy Allen; A John Simpson; David Ashley Price Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Diana Sbiti-Rohr; Alexander Kutz; Mirjam Christ-Crain; Robert Thomann; Werner Zimmerli; Claus Hoess; Christoph Henzen; Beat Mueller; Philipp Schuetz Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 2.692