Literature DB >> 31230954

Predicting Inpatient Payments Prior to Lower Extremity Arthroplasty Using Deep Learning: Which Model Architecture Is Best?

Jaret M Karnuta1, Sergio M Navarro2, Heather S Haeberle3, J Matthew Helm4, Atul F Kamath1, Jonathan L Schaffer1, Viktor E Krebs1, Prem N Ramkumar1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in machine learning have given rise to deep learning, which uses hierarchical layers to build models, offering the ability to advance value-based healthcare by better predicting patient outcomes and costs of a given treatment. The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of 2 common deep learning models, traditional multilayer perceptron (MLP), and the newer dense neural network (DenseNet), in predicting outcomes for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as a foundation for future musculoskeletal studies seeking to utilize machine learning.
METHODS: Using 295,605 patients undergoing primary THA and TKA from a New York State inpatient administrative database from 2009 to 2016, 2 neural network designs (MLP vs DenseNet) with different model regularization techniques (dropout, batch normalization, and DeCovLoss) were applied to compare model performance on predicting inpatient procedural cost using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Models were implemented to identify high-cost surgical cases.
RESULTS: DenseNet performed similarly to or better than MLP across the different regularization techniques in predicting procedural costs of THA and TKA. Applying regularization to DenseNet resulted in a significantly higher AUC as compared to DenseNet alone (0.813 vs 0.792, P = .011). When regularization methods were applied to MLP, the AUC was significantly lower than without regularization (0.621 vs 0.791, P = 1.1 × 10-15). When the optimal MLP and DenseNet models were compared in a head-to-head fashion, they performed similarly at cost prediction (P > .999).
CONCLUSION: This study establishes that in predicting costs of lower extremity arthroplasty, DenseNet models improve in performance with regularization, whereas simple neural network models perform significantly worse without regularization. In light of the resource-intensive nature of creating and testing deep learning models for orthopedic surgery, particularly for value-centric procedures such as arthroplasty, this study establishes a set of key technical features that resulted in better prediction of inpatient surgical costs. We demonstrated that regularization is critically important for neural networks in arthroplasty cost prediction and that future studies should utilize these deep learning techniques to predict arthroplasty costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  big data; deep learning; machine learning; neural networks; total hip arthroplasty; total knee arthroplasty

Year:  2019        PMID: 31230954     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  13 in total

1.  Key Experimental Factors of Machine Learning-Based Identification of Surgery Cancellations.

Authors:  Fengyi Zhang; Xinyuan Cui; Renrong Gong; Chuan Zhang; Zhigao Liao
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 2.682

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence in arthroplasty.

Authors:  Glen Purnomo; Seng-Jin Yeo; Ming Han Lincoln Liow
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2021-11-02

3.  Artificial Learning and Machine Learning Decision Guidance Applications in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Cesar D Lopez; Anastasia Gazgalis; Venkat Boddapati; Roshan P Shah; H John Cooper; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-09-03

4.  Artificial intelligence in orthopaedics: A scoping review.

Authors:  Simon J Federer; Gareth G Jones
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Artificial Intelligence Predicts Cost After Ambulatory Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Yining Lu; Kyle Kunze; Matthew R Cohn; Ophelie Lavoie-Gagne; Evan Polce; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Brian Forsythe
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-11-27

6.  Machine Learning Model Developed to Aid in Patient Selection for Outpatient Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Cesar D Lopez; Jessica Ding; David P Trofa; H John Cooper; Jeffrey A Geller; Thomas R Hickernell
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-12-08

Review 7.  Artificial intelligence in diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis and prediction of arthroplasty outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Lok Sze Lee; Ping Keung Chan; Chunyi Wen; Wing Chiu Fung; Amy Cheung; Vincent Wai Kwan Chan; Man Hong Cheung; Henry Fu; Chun Hoi Yan; Kwong Yuen Chiu
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2022-03-05

8.  Machine Learning Predicts Femoral and Tibial Implant Size Mismatch for Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Evan M Polce; Kyle N Kunze; Katlynn M Paul; Brett R Levine
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-02-26

9.  A Novel Machine Learning Predictive Tool Assessing Outpatient or Inpatient Designation for Medicare Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  David Kugelman; Shengnan Huang; Greg Teo; Michael Doran; Vivek Singh; Daniel Buchalter; William J Long
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2022-01-18

Review 10.  The path from big data analytics capabilities to value in hospitals: a scoping review.

Authors:  Pierre-Yves Brossard; Etienne Minvielle; Claude Sicotte
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.