Jeong Ho Park1, Sang Do Shin2, Kyoung Jun Song3, Ki Jeong Hong4, Young Sun Ro5, Jin-Wook Choi6, Sae Won Choi7. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University College of Medicine; Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine. Electronic address: timthe@gmail.com. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine. Electronic address: shinsangdo@gmail.com. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine. Electronic address: skciva@gmail.com. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine. Electronic address: emkjhong@gmail.com. 5. Laboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute. Electronic address: Ro.youngsun@gmail.com. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University College of Medicine. Electronic address: jinchoi@snu.ac.kr. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine; Office of Hospital Information, Seoul National University Hospital. Electronic address: saewonchoi@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to train, validate and compare predictive models that use machine learning analysis for good neurological recovery in OHCA patients. METHODS: Adult OHCA patients who had a presumed cardiac etiology and a sustained return of spontaneous circulation between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed; 80% of the individuals were analyzed for training and 20% were analyzed for validation. We developed using six machine learning algorithms: logistic regression (LR), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), support vector machine, random forest, elastic net (EN), and neural network. Variables that could be obtained within 24 hours of the emergency department visit were used. The area under the receiver operation curve (AUROC) was calculated to assess the discrimination. Calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Reclassification was assessed by using the continuous net reclassification index (NRI). RESULTS: A total of 19,860 OHCA patients were included in the analysis. Of the 15,888 patients in the training group, 2228 (14.0%) had a good neurological recovery; of the 3972 patients in the validation group, 577 (14.5%) had a good neurological recovery. The LR, XGB, and EN models showed the highest discrimination powers (AUROC (95% CI)) of 0.949 (0.941-0.957) for all), and all three models were well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: p >0.05). The XGB model reclassified patients according to their true risk better than the LR model (NRI: 0.110), but the EN model reclassified patients worse than the LR model (NRI: -1.239). CONCLUSION: The best performing machine learning algorithm was the XGB and LR algorithm.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to train, validate and compare predictive models that use machine learning analysis for good neurological recovery in OHCA patients. METHODS: Adult OHCA patients who had a presumed cardiac etiology and a sustained return of spontaneous circulation between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed; 80% of the individuals were analyzed for training and 20% were analyzed for validation. We developed using six machine learning algorithms: logistic regression (LR), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), support vector machine, random forest, elastic net (EN), and neural network. Variables that could be obtained within 24 hours of the emergency department visit were used. The area under the receiver operation curve (AUROC) was calculated to assess the discrimination. Calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Reclassification was assessed by using the continuous net reclassification index (NRI). RESULTS: A total of 19,860 OHCA patients were included in the analysis. Of the 15,888 patients in the training group, 2228 (14.0%) had a good neurological recovery; of the 3972 patients in the validation group, 577 (14.5%) had a good neurological recovery. The LR, XGB, and EN models showed the highest discrimination powers (AUROC (95% CI)) of 0.949 (0.941-0.957) for all), and all three models were well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: p >0.05). The XGB model reclassified patients according to their true risk better than the LR model (NRI: 0.110), but the EN model reclassified patients worse than the LR model (NRI: -1.239). CONCLUSION: The best performing machine learning algorithm was the XGB and LR algorithm.
Authors: Omar Ibrahim; Heidi G Sutherland; Rodney A Lea; Fatima Nasrallah; Neven Maksemous; Robert A Smith; Larisa M Haupt; Lyn R Griffiths Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Anoop Mayampurath; Raffi Hagopian; Laura Venable; Kyle Carey; Dana Edelson; Matthew Churpek Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Yeongho Choi; Jeong Ho Park; Ki Jeong Hong; Young Sun Ro; Kyoung Jun Song; Sang Do Shin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ji Han Heo; Taegyun Kim; Jonghwan Shin; Gil Joon Suh; Joonghee Kim; Yoon Sun Jung; Seung Min Park; Sungwan Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 2.153