Literature DB >> 25466337

Mortality prediction in intensive care units with the Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA): a population-based study.

Romain Pirracchio1, Maya L Petersen2, Marco Carone3, Matthieu Resche Rigon4, Sylvie Chevret4, Mark J van der Laan2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Improved mortality prediction for patients in intensive care units is a big challenge. Many severity scores have been proposed, but findings of validation studies have shown that they are not adequately calibrated. The Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA), an ensemble machine learning technique that uses multiple learning algorithms to obtain better prediction performance, does at least as well as the best member of its library. We aimed to assess whether the Super Learner could provide a new mortality prediction algorithm for patients in intensive care units, and to assess its performance compared with other scoring systems.
METHODS: From January, 2001, to December, 2008, we used the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC-II) database (version 26) including all patients admitted to an intensive care unit at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Boston, MA, USA. We assessed the calibration, discrimination, and risk classification of predicted hospital mortality based on Super Learner compared with SAPS-II, APACHE-II, and SOFA. We calculated performance measures with cross-validation to avoid making biased assessments. Our proposed score was then externally validated on a dataset of 200 randomly selected patients admitted at the intensive care unit of Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Paris, France, between Sept 1, 2013, and June, 30, 2014. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The explanatory variables were the same as those included in the SAPS II score.
FINDINGS: 24,508 patients were included, with median SAPS-II of 38 (IQR 27-51) and median SOFA of 5 (IQR 2-8). 3002 of 24,508 (12%) patients died in the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre. We produced two sets of predictions based on the Super Learner; the first based on the 17 variables as they appear in the SAPS-II score (SL1), and the second, on the original, untransformed variables (SL2). The two versions yielded average predicted probabilities of death of 0·12 (IQR 0·02-0·16) and 0·13 (0·01-0·19), whereas the corresponding value for SOFA was 0·12 (0·05-0·15) and for SAPS-II 0·30 (0·08-0·48). The cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for SAPS-II was 0·78 (95% CI 0·77-0·78) and 0·71 (0·70-0·72) for SOFA. Super Learner had an AUROC of 0·85 (0·84-0·85) when the explanatory variables were categorised as in SAPS-II, and of 0·88 (0·87-0·89) when the same explanatory variables were included without any transformation. Additionally, Super Learner showed better calibration properties than previous score systems. On the external validation dataset, the AUROC was 0·94 (0·90-0·98) and calibration properties were good.
INTERPRETATION: Compared with conventional severity scores, Super Learner offers improved performance for predicting hospital mortality in patients in intensive care units. A user-friendly implementation is available online and should be useful for clinicians seeking to validate our score. FUNDING: Fulbright Foundation, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Doris Duke Clinical Scientist Development Award, and the NIH.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25466337      PMCID: PMC4321691          DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70239-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Respir Med        ISSN: 2213-2600            Impact factor:   30.700


  41 in total

1.  PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals.

Authors:  A L Goldberger; L A Amaral; L Glass; J M Hausdorff; P C Ivanov; R G Mark; J E Mietus; G B Moody; C K Peng; H E Stanley
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2000-06-13       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Validation techniques for logistic regression models.

Authors:  M E Miller; S L Hui; W M Tierney
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Critical care medicine in the United States 2000-2005: an analysis of bed numbers, occupancy rates, payer mix, and costs.

Authors:  Neil A Halpern; Stephen M Pastores
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.598

4.  Prediction of outcome in critically ill patients using artificial neural network synthesised by genetic algorithm.

Authors:  R Dybowski; P Weller; R Chang; V Gant
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-04-27       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  SAPS II revisited.

Authors:  Philippe Aegerter; Ariane Boumendil; Aurélia Retbi; Etienne Minvielle; Benoit Dervaux; Bertrand Guidet
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-01-28       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  A Comparison of Intensive Care Unit Mortality Prediction Models through the Use of Data Mining Techniques.

Authors:  Sujin Kim; Woojae Kim; Rae Woong Park
Journal:  Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2011-12-31

8.  APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system.

Authors:  W A Knaus; J E Zimmerman; D P Wagner; E A Draper; D E Lawrence
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Assessing the calibration of mortality benchmarks in critical care: The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revisited.

Authors:  Andrew A Kramer; Jack E Zimmerman
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 7.598

10.  Comparison of the performance of SAPS II, SAPS 3, APACHE II, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit.

Authors:  Y Sakr; C Krauss; A C K B Amaral; A Réa-Neto; M Specht; K Reinhart; G Marx
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2008-10-09       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  90 in total

1.  Application of Machine Learning in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Settings Using MIMIC Dataset: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mahanazuddin Syed; Shorabuddin Syed; Kevin Sexton; Hafsa Bareen Syeda; Maryam Garza; Meredith Zozus; Farhanuddin Syed; Salma Begum; Abdullah Usama Syed; Joseph Sanford; Fred Prior
Journal:  Informatics (MDPI)       Date:  2021-03-03

2.  Predictive modeling of U.S. health care spending in late life.

Authors:  Liran Einav; Amy Finkelstein; Sendhil Mullainathan; Ziad Obermeyer
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Inclusion of Unstructured Clinical Text Improves Early Prediction of Death or Prolonged ICU Stay.

Authors:  Gary E Weissman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Lyle H Ungar; Michael O Harhay; Casey S Greene; Blanca E Himes; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 7.598

4.  Artificial intelligence in intensive care: are we there yet?

Authors:  Matthieu Komorowski
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Understanding intensive care unit benchmarking.

Authors:  Jorge I F Salluh; Marcio Soares; Mark T Keegan
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Calibration Drift Among Regression and Machine Learning Models for Hospital Mortality.

Authors:  Sharon E Davis; Thomas A Lasko; Guanhua Chen; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-04-16

7.  Will my patient survive? Look for creatinine in the urine!

Authors:  Michael Darmon; Kianoush Kashani; Miet Schetz
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Using Active Learning for Speeding up Calibration in Simulation Models.

Authors:  Mucahit Cevik; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mark Craven; Oguzhan Alagoz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis.

Authors:  William J Gibson; Tarek Nafee; Ryan Travis; Megan Yee; Mathieu Kerneis; Magnus Ohman; C Michael Gibson
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.300

10.  Learning a Severity Score for Sepsis: A Novel Approach based on Clinical Comparisons.

Authors:  Kirill Dyagilev; Suchi Saria
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2015-11-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.