| Literature DB >> 27042200 |
Sabina Tangaro1, Annarita Fanizzi2, Nicola Amoroso3, Roberto Corciulo4, Elena Garuccio5, Loreto Gesualdo4, Giuliana Loizzo4, Deni Aldo Procaccini4, Lucia Vernò4, Roberto Bellotti3.
Abstract
Monitoring of dialysis sessions is crucial as different stress factors can yield suffering or critical situations. Specialized personnel is usually required for the administration of this medical treatment; nevertheless, subjects whose clinical status can be considered stable require different monitoring strategies when compared with subjects with critical clinical conditions. In this case domiciliary treatment or monitoring can substantially improve the quality of life of patients undergoing dialysis. In this work, we present a Computer Aided Detection (CAD) system for the telemonitoring of patients' clinical parameters. The CAD was mainly designed to predict the insurgence of critical events; it consisted of two Random Forest (RF) classifiers: the first one (RF1) predicting the onset of any malaise one hour after the treatment start and the second one (RF2) again two hours later. The developed system shows an accurate classification performance in terms of both sensitivity and specificity. The specificity in the identification of nonsymptomatic sessions and the sensitivity in the identification of symptomatic sessions for RF2 are equal to 86.60% and 71.40%, respectively, thus suggesting the CAD as an effective tool to support expert nephrologists in telemonitoring the patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27042200 PMCID: PMC4799825 DOI: 10.1155/2016/8748156
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Basic information about the parameters measured for the ten patients.
| Subjects | Age | Sex | Critical | Average | Average | Average | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sbj 1 | 66 | M | 0 | 80.6 ± 3.3 | 143.2 ± 8.2 | 70.4 ± 4.2 | 68.6 ± 3.5 |
| Sbj 2 | 65 | M | 3 | 93.7 ± 3.8 | 118.2 ± 8.3 | 64.6 ± 3.7 | 58.1 ± 4.1 |
| Sbj 3 | 65 | M | 5 | 72.1 ± 3.1 | 111.9 ± 10.8 | 54.5 ± 6.2 | 78.0 ± 4.5 |
| Sbj 4 | 65 | M | 6 | 80.0 ± 3.3 | 117.4 ± 9.3 | 65.0 ± 5.8 | 67.4 ± 5.3 |
| Sbj 5 | 37 | M | 2 | 60.2 ± 3.0 | 109.5 ± 7.3 | 71.9 ± 4.9 | 66.5 ± 4.6 |
| Sbj 6 | 47 | M | 0 | 47.9 ± 2.4 | 130.5 ± 4.7 | 74.5 ± 3.4 | 72.8 ± 3.3 |
| Sbj 7 | 52 | M | 0 | 82.7 ± 5.2 | 116.4 ± 6.5 | 75.9 ± 4.3 | 67.2 ± 4.2 |
| Sbj 8 | 67 | F | 0 | 62.0 ± 2.9 | 131.3 ± 7.9 | 82.5 ± 4.0 | 69.8 ± 3.1 |
| Sbj 9 | 69 | F | 1 | 61.8 ± 2.6 | 151.6 ± 8.7 | 84.2 ± 5.6 | 69.3 ± 4.6 |
| Sbj 10 | 68 | F | 0 | 92.0 ± 3.7 | 124.3 ± 7.9 | 59.5 ± 4.1 | 70.3 ± 3.8 |
Differences between the average values of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) registered in the two classes of sessions, for each time t of detection.
| Parameters | ||
|---|---|---|
| SBP (mmHg) | DBP (mmHg) | |
|
| −7.86 | −4.43 |
|
| −9.34 | −5.92 |
|
| −7.33 | −4.68 |
|
| −12.53 | −6.01 |
|
| −13.80 | −7.22 |
|
| −16.69 | −8.80 |
|
| −16.43 | −8.21 |
|
| −22.70 | −12.97 |
|
| −21.52 | −7.39 |
p value < 0.05; p value < 0.01.
Differences between the average values of weight loss recorded in the two classes of sessions, for each time t of the detection.
| Parameter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| Weight loss (Kg) | — | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.14 | −0.78 |
p value < 0.05.
Bravais-Pearson correlation coefficients between weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) recorded during the asymptomatic sessions.
| Weight (Kg) versus SBP (mmHg) | Weight (Kg) versus DBP (mmHg) | Weight (Kg) versus HR (bpm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.04 | −0.49 | −0.25 |
|
| −0.11 | −0.45 | −0.29 |
|
| −0.15 | −0.50 | −0.25 |
|
| −0.15 | −0.55 | −0.25 |
|
| −0.16 | −0.49 | −0.23 |
|
| −0.22 | −0.45 | −0.29 |
|
| −0.28 | −0.47 | −0.35 |
|
| −0.33 | −0.46 | −0.33 |
|
| −0.30 | −0.64 | −0.30 |
p value < 0.05; p value < 0.01.
Bravais-Pearson correlation coefficients between the weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) recorded during the symptomatic sessions.
| Weight (Kg) versus SBP (mmHg) | Weight (Kg) versus DBP (mmHg) | Weight (Kg) versus HR (bpm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.59 | −0.63 | −0.53 |
|
| −0.22 | −0.35 | −0.46 |
|
| −0.22 | 0.13 | −0.47 |
|
| −0.13 | −0.04 | −0.43 |
|
| −0.18 | −0.15 | −0.34 |
|
| −0.06 | −0.19 | −0.47 |
|
| −0.31 | −0.16 | −0.54 |
|
| 0.23 | 0.06 | −0.29 |
|
| −0.15 | −0.16 | −0.34 |
p value < 0.05; p value < 0.01.
Figure 1Timeline flowchart of the monitored hemodialysis session. The patients' monitoring yielding the measurement of features after 60 and 180 minutes is emphasized; in particular two Random Forests (RF) are used to detect the session trend and eventually a malaise warning.
Bravais-Pearson correlation coefficients between systolic blood pressure (mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) recorded during symptomatic dialysis sessions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.57 | 0.70 |
p value < 0.01.
Figure 2The figure shows a comprehensive overview of the training (blue box) and the prediction algorithm (yellow box).
Figure 3The AUC comparison of both classifiers for different values of the proportionality factor k of the standard deviation in the Gaussian noise.
Figure 4ROC curve of the first (a) and the second (b) classifier.
Performance indicators of the two classifiers.
| Classifier | ||
|---|---|---|
| RF1 | RF2 | |
| AUC ± SE | 0.76 ± 0.05 | 0.73 ± 0.05 |
| Accuracy | 86.50% | 85.00% |
| Specificity | 88.50% | 86.00% |
| Sensitivity | 64.70% | 71.40% |