Applications of machine learning in decision analysis for dose management for dofetilide.

BACKGROUND: Initiation of the antiarrhythmic medication dofetilide requires an FDA-mandated 3 days of telemetry monitoring due to heightened risk of toxicity within this time period. Although a recommended dose management algorithm for dofetilide exists, there is a range of real-world approaches to dosing the medication. METHODS AND
RESULTS: In this multicenter investigation, clinical data from the Antiarrhythmic Drug Genetic (AADGEN) study was examined for 354 patients undergoing dofetilide initiation. Univariate logistic regression identified a starting dofetilide dose of 500 mcg (OR 5.0, 95%CI 2.5-10.0, p<0.001) and sinus rhythm at the start of dofetilide loading (OR 2.8, 95%CI 1.8-4.2, p<0.001) as strong positive predictors of successful loading. Any dose-adjustment during loading (OR 0.19, 95%CI 0.12-0.31, p<0.001) and a history coronary artery disease (OR 0.33, 95%CI 0.19-0.59, p<0.001) were strong negative predictors of successful dofetilide loading. Based on the observation that any dose adjustment was a significant negative predictor of successful initiation, we applied multiple supervised approaches to attempt to predict the dose adjustment decision, but none of these approaches identified dose adjustments better than a probabilistic guess. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis identified 8 clusters as a reasonable data reduction method. These 8 clusters were then used to define patient states in a tabular reinforcement learning model trained on 80% of dosing decisions. Testing of this model on the remaining 20% of dosing decisions revealed good accuracy of the reinforcement learning model, with only 16/410 (3.9%) instances of disagreement.
CONCLUSIONS: Dose adjustments are a strong determinant of whether patients are able to successfully initiate dofetilide. A reinforcement learning algorithm informed by unsupervised learning was able to predict dosing decisions with 96.1% accuracy. Future studies will apply this algorithm prospectively as a data-driven decision aid.

Background

Decision analysis is an emerging field that uses outcomes from different decision approaches to guide future decision-making[1]. In many cases, medical decisions can be formulated as Markov-decision processes (MDPs), in which a given state of conditions can predict future states based on a model for decision-making[2]. Reinforcement learning, a subset of machine learning (ML), expands on MDPs by embedding reward-based feedback into decision outcomes so that an optimal decision approach, termed the policy, can be identified[3]. In recent years, this approach has achieved supra-human success rates in video and board games, among other applications[4, 5].

Reinforcement learning is one of three main categories of ML gaining popularity in medical applications, the other two being supervised and unsupervised learning[6]. Supervised applications use an example dataset to learn general rules (an algorithm) about the relationship of predictor variables (termed “features”) to an outcome of interest (termed a “label”). These general rules can then be applied to a new dataset to predict outcomes. Unsupervised learning, in contrast, does not use labelled outcomes and, instead, discovers relationships between different features on its own. The discovery process often restructures data into new classes, “shrinking” and consolidating features for more nimble use in supervised applications. In many applications, these methods complement each other, but whereas supervised and unsupervised methods lead to descriptive analyses, feedback from outcomes allows reinforcement learning to produce prescriptive analyses[7]. For this reason, reinforcement learning holds great promise as a tool to enrich clinical decisions. Currently, however, there are relatively few published applications in healthcare[8, 9].

Dofetilide is a common antiarrhythmic medication primarily used to treat atrial fibrillation. It is one of the few anti-arrhythmic medications other than amiodarone that has been approved for use in patients with coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathy. Like many other Vaughan Williams class III agents, dofetilide blocks the rapid delayed rectifier, IKr current, and thus can cause QT prolongation. Due to the risk of resultant fatal arrhythmias, the FDA has mandated a 3-day monitoring period for drug initiation[10]. There is a recommended algorithm for making dose adjustments during initiation, but these adjustments are still made at the treating provider’s discretion[10, 11]. In this investigation, we examine the patterns of dofetilide dose adjustment and the role of machine learning to develop algorithms aimed at successful initiation of the medication.

Methods

This study has been approved by the University of Colorado Internal Review Board (COMIRB Protocol #16–2675), and the Partners Human Research Committee (#2013-P002623). All subjects provided written informed consent.

Study population

The Antiarrhythmic Drug Genetic (AADGEN) study is a multi-center collaboration that includes investigators from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH, Boston, MA), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA), the Boston-area Veterans Affairs Medical Center (West Roxbury, MA), the Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, OH), the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN), and the University of Colorado Hospital (Aurora, CO). Patients were enrolled from July 7, 2014 to September 19, 2018, with the inclusion criterion being any patient admitted to in-patient telemetry for monitoring of initiation of dofetilide. The exclusion criteria included failure to provide written informed consent and failure to obtain a pre-dofetilide ECG. Massachusetts General Hospital served as the study’s coordinating center for this investigation. Internal Review Board approval was obtained at all enrolling centers. This study is a sub-study of a larger investigation into the genetic predictors of cardiac repolarization and drug toxicity of antiarrhythmic medications (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02439658).

Demographic and clinical information were obtained on all study participants that included age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), medications, past medical and cardiac history, including history of pacemaker/defibrillator, atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation, left ventricular function from transthoracic echocardiogram, recent lab values including creatinine, potassium, and magnesium, and electrocardiograms that include underlying rhythm, rate, and relevant intervals (PR, QRS, QT). QT interval was corrected for heart rate using Fridericia’s formula[12]. The timing of electrical cardioversion was also recorded.

The outcome of interest was successful loading of dofetilide, defined as discharge on dofetilide at any dose after at least 5 administrations. Data for all participants was collected retrospectively, after completion of the hospitalization; no clinical adjustments or changes were made by treating physicians as part of this investigation. Data was maintained in a centralized RedCap database managed by the study coordinating center at MGH.

Data processing

Prior to analysis, quality control was performed by study investigators, with manual review of outlier values for ECG parameters (i.e., QTc > 600 ms) and for discordant data values (e.g., PR interval on an ECG with rhythm listed as ‘atrial fibrillation’). When resolution or validation was not possible, values were replaced as missing. Summary and descriptive statistics are based on analysis of non-missing data; only 4.2% of the total dataset was missing. Due to the restrictions of machine-learning algorithms for complete datasets, missing values needed to be imputed with the median for numerical and integer values and most common for categorical. Categorical variables were also coded using ‘one-hot’ encoding and numerical variables were rescaled using min-max rescaling. Dose adjustments were only included if they were a decrease in dose from a higher dose, as FDA guidelines for dofetilide initiation suggest starting at the highest dose based on kidney function, and adjusting downward based on the QT changes on ECG; as such, any dose increase during the hospitalization was off-label. Based on this criterion, 14 patients who underwent dose increases were excluded. For all model evaluations, data were split into training (80% of total data) and testing sets (20% of total data) at the patient level.

Supervised analysis

Basic stepwise logistic regression was performed for successful initiation of dofetilide using a p value for exclusion of greater than 0.05. Based on the observation that dose adjustments were a significant predictor of successful initiation, we used ensemble methods to develop predictive models of the dose adjustment process. These models included L1 regularized logistic regression, random forest classification, a boosted decision tree classifier, support vector classification (radial basis function kernel), and K-nearest neighbors classification with a maximum of 10 neighbors. Comparison measures included accuracy, precision and recall scores, F1-score[13, 14], and area under ROC curve.

Unsupervised analysis

For unsupervised analysis, we first performed principal component analysis. Plotting the number of principal components (PC) versus variance, we hoped to identify the number of PCs that would account for greater than 90% of the variability in the data. We then performed a cluster analysis based on within cluster variation (sum-of-squares), and used the ‘elbow’ method to determine cluster numbers with sufficiently low within-cluster variability. We then used a K-means approach to create these clusters for use in subsequent reinforcement learning analyses.

Reinforcement learning

We next applied reinforcement learning using the SARSA algorithm (state–action–reward–state–action) for selecting dose adjustments based on a negative reward for unsuccessful initiation[15]. We applied two broad approaches to creation of action-value estimates (i.e., Q values) [16]. First, we defined 8 states created using K-means clustering from all clinical features, and performed tabular updates to a Q table based on dynamic programming (step-by-step updates). Alternatively, we performed linear function approximation for the Q values using linear weights (termed ‘Q learning’[17]), with updates using stochastic gradient descent based on experience[15]. The available actions in the Q value estimates included ‘continue the same dose’ or ‘decrease the dose’. The reward was selected to be -10 for doses leading to stopping of the medication (last dose before stopping) and 0 for all other doses, in order to penalize decisions resulting in a negative outcome.

The SARSA algorithm[15] updates a Q table with expected reward values based on state and action selected based on the following variation of the Bellman equation[15]:

The Q table was initialized at 0 for all values, with gamma (discount factor) of different values ranging from 0.1 to 1.0, and alpha (learning rate) of 0.1. Of note, a gamma close to 1 puts more weight on future states and rewards while a gamma of close to 0 tends to put more weight on immediate rewards. We experimented with a range of learning rates (0.05 to 0.3). The learning rate is the extent to which Q-values are updated with new iterations of data. Reinforcement learning algorithms were fitted with the testing set (per above, 80% of doses) and compared with actual decisions on the held-out test set (per above, 20% of doses). Additional analyses were performed using k = 4 and k = 6 (number of clusters).

Analysis

Descriptive statistical analysis, including chi-square for categorical and t-test for continuous comparison, as well as univariate logistic regression, was performed using Stata IC, Version 15.1 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, TX). Machine learning, including unsupervised, supervised, and reinforcement learning algorithms, were performed using Python 3, running scripts on Jupyter notebook (v5.0.0) deployed via Anaconda Navigator, on a Macbook Pro laptop computer (High Sierra, v10.13.6). Primary source of machine learning packages was scikit-learn (see Supplemental Methods for details).

Results

The baseline characteristics of the cohort are shown in Table 1. A total of 354 subjects were enrolled, with successful initiation (discharged on dofetilide) in 310 patients (87.1%) and unsuccessful in 44. Use of calcium channel blockers and initial dose of dofetilide were different between patients with successful vs. unsuccessful initiation of dofetilide, although none of these p values reached statistical significance after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons (probability of false positive = p/(# of rows in Table 1) = 0.05/24 = 0.002). There were no other differences in baseline parameters between patients.

Table 1

Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics.

A total of 354 subjects were enrolled in the Anti-arrhythmic Drug Genetic (AADGEN) study, with successful initiation (discharged on dofetilide) in 310 patients (87.1%) and unsuccessful in 44. Note: Dose excludes 4 patients with a different starting dose than listed.

		Successful initiation(N = 310)	Unsuccessful initiation(N = 44)	P value
Age (Mean ± SD)		66.6 ± 10.7	67.7 ± 9.7	0.53
Female Sex (%)		91 (29.4%)	18 (40.9%)	0.12
BMI (Mean ± SD)		30.2 ± 7.2	29.6 ± 7.5	0.57
History of:
	AF (%)	297 (95.8%)	44 (100%)	0.17
	VT (%)	12 (3.9%)	0 (0%)	0.18
	PPM (%)	20 (6.5%)	3 (6.8%)	0.93
	ICD (%)	20 (6.5%)	3 (6.8%)	0.93
	HTN (%)	142 (45.8%)	18 (40.9%)	0.54
	DM (%)	38 (12.2%)	3 (6.8%)	0.29
	CAD (%)	68 (21.9%)	7 (15.9%)	0.36
	CHF (%)	35 (11.3%)	8 (18.2%)	0.19
LV EF (%) (Mean ± SD)		54.8 ± 12.3	50.9 ± 16.2	0.10
Medications:
	Beta blockers (%)	117 (57.1%)	27 (61.4%)	0.59
	Calcium channel blockers (%)	67 (21.6%)	17 (38.6%)	0.01
Baseline lab values:
	Potassium (mmol/L)	4.3 ± 0.47	4.4 ± 0.36	0.28
	Magnesium (mg/dL)	2.0 ± 0.26	2.0 ± 0.19	0.98
	Creatinine (mg/dL)	1.01 ± 0.25	1.04 ± 0.28	0.46
Baseline ECG:
	Sinus Rhythm (%)	114 (37.8%)	12 (27.3%)	0.18
	HR	80.8 ± 20.5	86.3 ± 24.0	0.11
	PR	179.2 ± 40.8	190.2 ± 56.9	0.39
	QRS	102.4 ± 25.8	98.8 ± 25.1	0.38
	QT	428.2 ± 50.4	436.5 ± 59.4	0.33
	QTc	445.0 ± 39.2	451.9 ± 39.2	0.25
Initial Dose
	500 mcg	227 (73.5%)	25 (56.8%)	0.02
	250 mcg	74 (24.0%)	16 (36.4%)	-
	125 mcg	4 (1.3%)	3 (6.8%)	-

Abbreviations: SD = Standard deviation; BMI = Body mass index; AF = Atrial fibrillation; VT = Ventricular tachycardia; PPM = Presence of a permanent pacemaker; ICD = Presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; HTN = Hypertension; DM = Diabetes; CAD = Coronary artery disease; CHF = Congestive heart failure; LV EF = Left ventricular ejection fraction; ECG = electrocardiogram; HR = heart rate; PR/QRS/QT = cardiac intervals (not abbreviations); QTc = corrected (heart rate) QT interval; mcg = micrograms.

Fig 1 shows representative dosing approaches for dofetilide, as well as timing of cardioversions. The most common dose regimens included subjects with no adjustments throughout the 5–6 dose course in order to obtain a steady-state of the medication (n = 204, 57.6%). Stepwise univariate regression was performed for successful initiation across the course of dofetilide initiation, which revealed that dose number, dose amount, dose adjustment, ejection fraction, history of heart failure, sinus rhythm, QRS, QTc, presence of a pacemaker, and coronary artery disease were predictors of successful discharge on dofetilide at p < 0.05 (Table 2). The strongest predictors for successful initiation of dofetilide were starting dose of 500 mcg (OR 5.0, 2.5–10.0, p < 0.001) and dose adjustment during initiation (OR 0.19, 0.21–0.31, p < 0.001), which was a negative predictor. Because it had such a strong effect, we selected dose adjustment as the target for machine learning techniques.

Fig 1

Dose patterns of dofetilide.

A schematic of the most common dosing approaches for dofetilide (color-coded rows) among patients who were successfully initiated (discharged on medicine0. The numbers in each individual cell correspond to the number of electrical cardioversion procedures performed after that specific dose within that specific dosing scheme. 29 patients with atypical dosing regimens (i.e. increases in dose) are excluded. The bottom row represents patients who were not successfully initiated on Dofetilide (n = 44).

Table 2

Association with successful loading of dofetilide.

Univariate logistic regression results for associations with successful loading of dofetilide (discharged on medication). Dose position refers to an integer from 1 to 6, in which 1 would have been the first dose and 5 or 6 would have been the final dose. Dose adjustment is any decrease in dose from the prior dose. Sinus rhythm refers to patients in sinus rhythm at the time of the dosing decision.

	OR	CI	p value
500mcg dose*	5.0	2.5–10.0	<0.001
250 mcg dose*	1.5	0.8–2.9	0.21
Dose position	1.3	1.1–1.5	0.001
Dose adjustment	0.19	0.12–0.31	< 0.001
Sinus rhythm	2.8	1.8–4.2	< 0.001
PPM	3.3	1.4–7.4	0.004
LVEF	1.03	1.01–1.05	0.001
CHF	1.8	1.0–3.0	0.04
QRS	1.02	1.01–1.03	0.001
QTc	0.992	0.987–0.997	0.002
CAD	0.33	0.19–0.59	< 0.001

PPM = Presence of a pacemaker; LVEF = Left ventricular ejection fraction (by transthoracic echocardiogram); CHF = Congestive Heart Failure; QRS = QRS interval; QTc = Corrected QT interval; CAD = Coronary artery disease. *Comparison is with 125mcg dose.

The 354 subjects in our analysis collectively received a total of 2037 doses of dofetilide. Out of a possible 2037 opportunities to adjust the dose of dofetilide, dose adjustments were made in 144 instances. This corresponds to a dose change probability of 7.1%, indicating that a naïve approach that predicted only no dose adjustment would be accurate 92.9% of the time, which was used as the comparison for machine-learning approaches developed to predict whether a dose adjustment would be made. However, none of the supervised analyses resulted in improvement in identification of a medication adjustment by providers over a naïve approach (based on accuracy, or any of the other classification metrics applied) as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Supervised learning approaches to decision-making.

A naïve approach to dose adjustment classification, in which dose adjustments were predicted based purely on the basis of a dose change probability of 7.1%, was used as a comparator for supervised approaches to predict dose adjustments.

	Accuracy	Precision Score	Recall Score	F1 Score	AUC
Naïve (Probabilistic) Classifier	0.93	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5
L1 Logistic Regression	0.93	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5
Random Forest Classifier	0.93	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5
Boosted Decision Tree	0.93	0.5	0.03	0.065	0.52
SVM with RBF kernel	0.93	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5
KNN (k = 1)	0.86	0.14	0.17	0.15	0.54
KNN (k = 10)	0.93	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5

SVM = Support vector machine, RBF = Radial basis function, KNN = K-nearest neighbor classification, Accuracy = # correct/total; precision score (positive predictive value) = # of true positives/(true positives + false positives); recall score (sensitivity) = # of true positives/(true positives + false negatives); F1 score = 2 * (precision*recall)/(precision + recall); AUC = area under receiver operator characteristic curve.

As described above, unsupervised principal component analysis was performed across 25 patient and dosing characteristics. We noted that the first two principal components (PCs) accounted for 65.0% of the total variance and 90% of the total variance could be explained by the first 8 PCs (Fig 2A). Cluster analysis using within-cluster sum-of-squares identified cluster numbers of k = 4 or greater as providing sufficiently low within-cluster variability, and validated use of k = 8 clusters (Fig 2B). Qualitative assessment of each PC revealed that there was apparent clustering along the first PC into 6 groups, which likely represent the dose number (S1 Fig). Characteristics of each PC cluster are described in Table 4.

Fig 2

Principal component analysis.

A. Cumulative and per-component variance explained for each sequential principal component (PC). B. Cluster analysis based on within-cluster sum-of-squares.

Table 4

Cluster characteristics.

Unsupervised principal component analysis was performed across 25 patient and dosing characteristics.

Cluster	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Number	241	229	255	287	369	251	184	221
Dose position (% of dose)	2–125 (51.9%)3–116 (48.1%)	4–229 (100%)	1–255 (100%)	5–166 (57.9%)6–121 (42.2%)	5–167 (45.3%)6–202 (54.7%)	3–135 (53.8%)4–116 (46.2%)	2–98 (53.3%)3–86 (46.7%)	1–99 (44.8%)2–122 (55.2%)
Dose amount	500mcg-241 (100%)	500mcg-182 (82.0%)250mcg-40 (18.0%)	500mcg-255 (100%)	500mcg-287 (100%)	250mcg-218 (79.9%)125mcg-55 (20.1%)	250mcg-197 (84.6%)125mcg-36 (15.5%)	500mcg-184 (100%)	250mcg-188 (90.8%)125mcg-19 (9.2%)
Age (years)	62.6 ± 10.5	64.6 ± 10.8	64.6 ± 10.2	64.9 ± 9.8	68.0 ± 10.9	70.1 ± 10.2	67.3 ± 8.3	70.8 ± 10.6
Female Sex	55 (22.8%)	48 (21.0%)	64 (25.1%)	61 (21.3%)	138 (37.4%)	113 (45.0%)	44 (23.9%)	99 (44.8%)
Sinus Rhythm	125 (52.3%)	158 (70.5%)	93 (37.1%)	229 (80.6%)	284 (79.8%)	125 (51.4%)	87 (48.1%)	86 (40.4%)
Heart rate (bpm)	74.7 ± 17.0	68.2 ± 15.4	80.7 ± 20.1	65.9 ± 13.6	70.0 ± 17.6	73.6 ± 18.5	71.9 ± 16.5	78.5 ± 21.0
QRS	100.0±21.2	103.7±24.1	102.8±24.9	104.3±24.8	100.9±24.0	102.5±30.9	107.5±38.3	103.3±26.5
QTc	465.1±34.5	469.5±35.1	443.7±35.6	468.6±35.2	477.1±39.0	486.1±42.2	463.1±36.6	466.6±46.7
Creatinine	0.96±0.21	1.00±0.25	0.98±0.22	0.98±0.23	1.04±0.27	1.07±0.28	0.99±0.22	1.09±0.31
Beta Blocker	122 (50.6%)	113 (49.3%)	144 (56.5%)	162 (56.5%)	217 (58.8%)	173 (68.9%)	108 (58.7%)	138 (62.4%)
CCB	39 (16.2%)	54 (23.6%)	53 (20.8%)	59 (20.6%)	90 (24.4%)	57 (22.7%)	59 (32.1%)	61 (27.6%)
CHF	12 (5.0%)	17 (7.4%)	27 (10.6%)	24 (8.4%)	54 (14.6%)	47 (18.7%)	26 (14.1%)	39 (17.7%)
CAD	24 (10.0%)	31 (13.5%)	47 (18.4%)	47 (16.4%)	88 (23.9%)	79 (31.5%)	49 (26.6%)	58 (26.2%)
HTN	0 (0%)	81 (35.4%)	106 (41.6%)	121 (42.2%)	182 (49.3%)	139 (55.4%)	184 (100%)	110 (49.8%)
DM	12 (5.0%)	22 (9.6%)	31 (12.2%)	35 (12.2%)	42 (11.4%)	33 (13.2%)	41 (22.3%)	23 (10.4%)
PPM	14 (5.8%)	14 (6.1%)	15 (5.9%)	20 (7.0%)	25 (6.8%)	16 (6.4%)	14 (7.6%)	13 (5.9%)
ICD	11 (4.6%)	12 (5.2%)	16 (6.3%)	16 (5.6%)	22 (6.0%)	22 (8.8%)	11 (6.0%)	18 (8.1%)
LVEF	54.6 ± 12.6	54.7 ± 12.3	54.3 ± 13.0	54.4 ± 13.0	54.5 ± 12.1	53.9 ± 13.0	53.6 ± 13.0	54.3 ± 13.1

All values listed at mean ± SD or number (%). Sinus rhythm = sinus or atrial paced rhythm (not atrial fibrillation/flutter); CCB = Calcium channel blocker; CHF = heart failure; CAD = coronary artery disease; HTN = hypertension; DM = diabetes mellitus; PPM = pacemaker present; ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator present; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction based on transthoracic echocardiography

After training the model on the training set (80% of data, 1627 doses), the accuracy of a tabular reinforcement-learning model for predicting actual decisions on the testing set (20%, 410 doses) was good, with only 3.9% disagreement (16/410) noted. Sensitivity analysis using a range of learning rates (alpha) and discount rates (gamma) had no impact on the accuracy of prediction; only the absolute Q values changed (not relative values). The least disagreement was observed in the Q table cluster with the smallest (most negative) values for rewards (Table 5). The analysis was repeated with use of k = 4 (S1 Table) and k = 6 clusters (S2 Table) which predicted actual decisions with less accuracy than the model with k = 8 clusters (98/410, 23%, correct for k = 4 clusters and 336/410, 82%, correct for k = 6 clusters).

Table 5

Q table.

Expected reward for each action for each cluster. Based on alpha (learning rate) = 0.05 and gamma (discount factor) = 0.2. Both alpha and gamma range from 0 to 1.

Cluster	Keep Dose	Lower Dose
1	0.0	0.0
2	-0.0057	0.0
3	0.0	0.0
4	-0.00002	0.0
5	-0.227	-2.26
6	-0.021	0.0
7	0.0	0.0
8	-0.00015	0.0

A linear reinforcement-learning policy function was able to achieve equal accuracy to tabular learning for certain hyper-parameter choices (alpha and gamma). Unlike the tabular learning model, however, the linear model was highly labile depending on hyper-parameter choices (S2 Fig). These models also had unstable weight estimates (See S3 Table) across parameters.

Discussion

In this investigation of decision-making surrounding dofetilide initiation, we examined several approaches for evaluating dose adjustment decisions. It is important to note that while dofetilide initiation is performed in the hospital primarily for safety reasons (adverse event monitoring), the goal of these admissions is successful initiation of the drug (discharge on dofetilide) while minimizing the risk of subsequent TdP or potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias[11]. With this in mind, there are important insights to be drawn from this novel application of advanced analytics and machine learning to decision-making surrounding dofetilide initiation.

First, it was evident from several models that making dose adjustments, particularly at later time points, was associated with less probability of successful initiation of the medication. This association was evident in both simple logistic regression models, as well as reinforcement-learning models in which the cluster with the most negative reward (#5) was composed of doses at a later state in the hospitalization (dose 4–5 vs. 1–2), and of smaller size. This finding suggests that making a decision to lower the dose of dofetilide in a patient who has already received 3–4 doses and is already on a lower dose (250 or 125mcg) is very unlikely to result in successful initiation. While further work is needed to validate these models prospectively, this finding could have an important impact on reducing healthcare costs. It would save time and money to stop the initiation process early in a patient in whom the probability of successful initiation is unlikely, rather than staying another day or night in the hospital, or perhaps start at a lower dose in patients at higher risk of an unsuccessful initiation.

Second, we found that none of the supervised learning algorithms were able to improve prediction about providers’ dose decisions based on the clinical information available. In other words, we were unable to ‘mimic’ the decisions of providers using a statistical model when it came to making dose adjustments of dofetilide. This finding suggests that future efforts based on a gold standard of human decision-making may not lead to the desired outcomes of creating a computer algorithm to replace humans in the process, and that focusing efforts on approaches using reinforcement learning may be a better option.

The key difference of reinforcement learning is that it allows the computer to ‘learn’ its own approach to obtain a given reward, rather than relying on human behavior as the gold standard. This finding has already been noted in creation of algorithms to win at the board game Go[4, 18], in which the AlphaGo algorithm based on supervised learning of human decisions[18] was bested by the AlphaGoZero algorithm, which learned entirely on its own, without attempting to replicate human decisions[4]. Reinforcement learning has been studied for many years[19, 20], although the medical applications of reinforcement learning are only in their infancy, and there is clearly an opportunity for this approach to greatly improve on clinical decision-making. A number of investigators have recently used this approach to enhance decision-making in clinical care[21], including in the intensive care unit[22].

Interestingly, while use of 8 clusters provided reasonable accuracy (96.1%) with regard to the actual decision made by clinicians, use of smaller numbers of clusters (k = 4 and k = 6) resulted in less accuracy, despite the fact that both of the methods with fewer clusters had more complete Q table (less values of 0.0) and that examination of the first two PCs appeared to suggest that 6 clusters may be a reasonable grouping for the data (S1 Fig). Examination of the characteristics of the clusters for k = 6 (S2 Table) reveals that dose number itself was not the only determinant of cluster composition, as several clusters were composed of mixed dose numbers, although all clusters were composed of sequential dose numbers (for example, no clusters were composed of dose numbers that were out of order, e.g., dose 1 and dose 5). This finding raises a critical issue regarding examination of reinforcement learning for guiding clinical decisions, which is that surrogate outcomes, such as consistency with actual decisions, may not be the ideal approach for identification of the ‘optimal’ model for guiding decisions to achieve a goal, which in this case was the probability of a successful loading of dofetilide. In that regard, our study highlights a key limitation in applications of machine learning in healthcare data, in which the practical process of data and technology integration limits the ability to build better learning systems. This study was entirely observational, which is in great contrast with most other reinforcement learning applications in which the learning agent is able to practice and improve its policy based on interaction with the environment. A key principle in reinforcement learning is exploration[15], in which better policies can be found by randomly attempting a new action that has been found to already provide the best reward. Without the ability to act on behalf of the policies learned, we were unable to determine if these actions are truly the optimal ones, or if there are conditions in which a decision to change the dose (perhaps at an earlier time in the loading course) could result in a greater likelihood of successful initiation. Whether this limitation was also responsible for the difference in accuracy with use of different cluster numbers, or the lack of convergence we observed using linear function approximation, which has been described in other circumstances[23, 24], remains to be determined. Only through future prospective applications can we verify that the approach applied in this study is the best method to maximize likelihood of successful dofetilide initiation.

Limitations

There were a number of key limitations in this study. First, we did not examine long-term outcomes, including recurrence of AF or drug toxicity, including torsade de pointes. This latter limitation is of obvious importance, as the ultimate goal of the 3-day monitoring period is to prevent toxicity[11]; however, there are benefits to identification of factors and approaches to maximize safe initiation of dofetilide as we identified, which can lead to improved patient satisfaction and cost savings. A second limitation was that our investigation was limited to the modest number of covariates collected on patients undergoing dofetilide initiation. To truly capture the benefits of many methods of machine learning, particularly deep learning, we would need to have a much larger number of patients and variables to include in the model. In the future, through more efficient data collection and storage, especially of high-density data such as telemetry information, we will be able to further leverage these ‘big data’ methods to improve healthcare decision-making[25, 26]. Finally, as discussed above, we were unable to prospectively apply and further improve the policy models developed from the observations in this data. Future implementations of these models within a reinforcement learning framework will be needed to determine if this approach is optimal, or if there are better algorithms for ensuring safe and efficient initiation of dofetilide and other medications.

In conclusion, we found that although most patients admitted for initiation of dofetilide are able to successfully complete the loading protocol (i.e., discharged on dofetilide), reinforcement learning approaches to model dose adjustments offer promise to optimize decision making. Future investigations are needed to explore this emerging approach to machine learning and automated clinical decision support.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-17964

Applications of Machine Learning in Decision Analysis for Dose Management for Dofetilide

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rosenberg,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.As outlined by the Reviewer, the manuscript is interesting in its subject matter, but needs extensive revision for proper evaluation of what the Authors actually did.  It should meet the standard that others in the field should be able to reproduce it and give confidence to those not expert in the field of the methodology used (i.e. why each method was chosen over other possibilities) and what the limitations of the method and interpretation are.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 09 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Randall Lee Rasmusson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper is devoted to an investigation of the interesting problem of the artificial intelligence application for the analysis of clinical data. Specifically, the authors used reinforcement learning algorithm for prediction of successful start of dofetilide loading. They investigated several multiple predictors and multiple supervised approaches. The authors found that the dose adjustment was a significant negative predictor of successful drug initiation.

In my view, the paper is interesting, the authors applied multiple techniques for data analysis, and the obtained results are also interesting and seem solid. I have only minor comments.

Minor points

1. The manuscript needs to have page numbers. So my comments will refer to pages starting from the title page as page #1.

2. Page 3, last paragraph. I would suggest to add that dofetilide is the rapid delayed rectifier current blocker, IKr.

3. Page 3, last paragraph. Two references are incomplete or unclear (#10, #11).

4. Page 5, last paragraph. PC needs to be described as abbreviation somewhere.

5. Page 6, first paragraph. How the rewards -10 and 0 were chosen? Have you investigated other reward values?

6. Page 6, second paragraph from the bottom. The authors examined learning rate from 0.5 to 0.3, but choose alpha = 0.1. Please explain. Or 0.5 should be 0.05?

7. Page 7, first paragraph. Please use other Greek letter other than alpha, as alpha was assigned to the learning rate.

8. Page 7, second paragraph from the bottom. Description of the results in Table 3 is unclear. Give more details. Please also spell out AUC and give definitions of all scores in Table 3.

9. Page 8, first paragraph. Figure 2A does not show any jump when the number of clusters increases. Can the authors explain this feature? Related just below.

10. Page 8, first paragraph. Is there any reason to show 6 clusters in Fig. 2A and 8 clusters in Table 4? Table 4 is not described. Are there significant differences between the clusters in Table 4? Is it possible to plot 8 clusters in Fig. 2b?

11. Page 9, sentence: “Reinforcement learning is only in its infancy in applications outside of computer games”. I disagree with the statement that reinforcement learning is in its infancy. It was known at least 25-30 years ago with corresponding applications. See, for example, JDR Millan and C Torras, A reinforcement connectionist approach to robot path finding in non-maze-like environment, Machine Learning 8: 363-395, 1992; or Gullapalli, Neural Network 3: 671-692, 1990 and references therein.

12. Table 1. Please spell out abbreviations at the bottom of the table 1.

13. Table 5. Title says that “Alpha is sometimes described as the learning rate”. It is actually defined as the learning rate in this manuscript; needs to be proper stated.

Reviewer #2: The problem is an interesting one. However, the description lacks details about the research methodology. For example, the description of the role of the clusters in the reinforcement learning process is unclear as well as the role of PCA. It appears to have only been used to determine the number of clusters, which seems like an odd criteria for selecting a number of clusters. My biggest concern regards the mismatch between the stated outcome of interest, "successful loading of dofetilide", and the reported outcome - percent agreement with physician dosing decisions. I am unable to reconcile this mismatch. It may be that there is great value in the research that was performed. However, the paper, as it currently stands, does not make that value clear to the reader.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Nov 2019

We thank the reviewers for their time and valuable insight. Comments were very helpful in guiding additional work on this investigation, and plans for future studies. Below are the direct responses to the comments, with reference to the changes in the manuscript, as indicated. Comments are listed in bold, with responses given in italics.

Reviewer #1: This paper is devoted to an investigation of the interesting problem of the artificial intelligence application for the analysis of clinical data. Specifically, the authors used reinforcement learning algorithm for prediction of successful start of dofetilide loading. They investigated several multiple predictors and multiple supervised approaches. The authors found that the dose adjustment was a significant negative predictor of successful drug initiation.

In my view, the paper is interesting, the authors applied multiple techniques for data analysis, and the obtained results are also interesting and seem solid. I have only minor comments.

Minor points

1. The manuscript needs to have page numbers. So my comments will refer to pages starting from the title page as page #1.

--We apologize for the exclusion of page numbers, and have added page numbers to the revised manuscript

2. Page 3, last paragraph. I would suggest to add that dofetilide is the rapid delayed rectifier current blocker, IKr.

--We have included this information as suggested on page 3 of the revised manuscript

3. Page 3, last paragraph. Two references are incomplete or unclear (#10, #11).

-- We have relabeled reference 10 to indicate that this is the Tikosyn label prescribing information (published by Pfizer, Inc.), with URL; and we have updated reference 11, which has since been published.

4. Page 5, last paragraph. PC needs to be described as abbreviation somewhere.

-- We have expanded this abbreviation on page 5 of the revised manuscript as requested.

5. Page 6, first paragraph. How the rewards -10 and 0 were chosen? Have you investigated other reward values?

-- We selected the direction (sign) of the reward based on the notion that the desired outcome was to avoid discontinuation of the medication, and as such assigned a negative reward for a decision (dose adjustment) that led to discontinuation of the loading protocol, with reward of zero for decisions that did not result in immediate discontinuation. This approach has been applied in similar reinforcement learning applications designed to guide decisions away from a negative outcome (e.g., balance a pole in a cart), although we are unaware of well-developed analysis in the medical decision-making literature about a systematic approach to reward selection. Due to the small sample size available for this investigation, we were unable to conduct a formal assessment of different reward values, although in preliminary analyses the absolute value of the reward did not make a qualitative difference in our results (i.e., it did not impact the relative values of the Q table as might have caused the model to select a different action for each cluster). We have included the rationale on page 6 of the revised manuscript.

6. Page 6, second paragraph from the bottom. The authors examined learning rate from 0.5 to 0.3, but choose alpha = 0.1. Please explain. Or 0.5 should be 0.05?

-- The reviewer is correct that this range is 0.05 to 0.3, and that the 0.5 should be 0.05, which has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

7. Page 7, first paragraph. Please use other Greek letter other than alpha, as alpha was assigned to the learning rate.

-- The application of alpha as described on page 7 is the alpha typically applied null-hypothesis testing as the probability of a false-positive result. To avoid confusion, as the reviewer mentions, we have replaced this ‘alpha’ with ‘probability of a false positive’ in the revised manuscript.

8. Page 7, second paragraph from the bottom. Description of the results in Table 3 is unclear. Give more details. Please also spell out AUC and give definitions of all scores in Table 3.

¬-- We have provided more information on page 7 about the definition and value of the naïve classifier used to compare machine learning approaches, and have defined each of the additional classification metrics in the figure description of Table 3, as requested. The implications of this finding are described in detail in the Discussion section on page 9.

9. Page 8, first paragraph. Figure 2A does not show any jump when the number of clusters increases. Can the authors explain this feature? Related just below.

-- As highlighted here, and by Reviewer #2 below, the justification for selection of the number of clusters based solely on the principal component analysis was likely insufficient, and required a formal cluster analysis in order to demonstrate that the number of clusters selected captures a reasonable amount of information (sufficiently small intra-cluster variability). In the new Figure 2B, we have provided the cluster analysis, which suggests that a number of clusters of 4 or greater provides adequate clustering of the data (intra-cluster sum-of-squares distance), based on the ‘elbow’ approach. In realization that a smaller number of clusters may provide a simpler interpretation, we repeated the tabular reinforcement learning algorithm using k = 4 and k = 6 clusters, finding that while use of a smaller number of clusters appeared to provide a more complete Q table (fewer zero cells), use of these lower numbers of clusters did not provide the same degree of accuracy with regard to the actual clinical decisions made by providers when examined on the held-out testing set. To provide the reader with additional insight into lower cluster numbers, we have included the cluster descriptions and Q tables for k = 4 and k = 6 clusters in the Supplemental Material section. We discuss the potential explanations and ramifications of this issue below, and in the revised discussion on page 10.

10. Page 8, first paragraph. Is there any reason to show 6 clusters in Fig. 2A and 8 clusters in Table 4? Table 4 is not described. Are there significant differences between the clusters in Table 4? Is it possible to plot 8 clusters in Fig. 2b?

¬-- As above, we revised the cluster selection approach, and selected k = 8 clusters as this number appeared to be most consistent with clinician decisions. The original Figure 2B, which shows the natural clustering across the first two principal components, has been moved to the Supplemental Figures, and replaced with a new Figure 2B, which displays the cluster analysis.

11. Page 9, sentence: “Reinforcement learning is only in its infancy in applications outside of computer games”. I disagree with the statement that reinforcement learning is in its infancy. It was known at least 25-30 years ago with corresponding applications. See, for example, JDR Millan and C Torras, A reinforcement connectionist approach to robot path finding in non-maze-like environment, Machine Learning 8: 363-395, 1992; or Gullapalli, Neural Network 3: 671-692, 1990 and references therein.

-- We agree with the reviewer, and have changed this paragraph to indicate that it is the medical applications of reinforcement learning that are in their infancy. We have also included the suggested citations (#19 and 20).

12. Table 1. Please spell out abbreviations at the bottom of the table 1.

-- We have added an abbreviations section below Table 1, as well as including units for all measurements provided within Table 1 of the revised manuscript.

13. Table 5. Title says that “Alpha is sometimes described as the learning rate”. It is actually defined as the learning rate in this manuscript; needs to be proper stated.

-- We agree with the reviewer that this information is redundant and have removed it from the Table 5 description in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The problem is an interesting one. However, the description lacks details about the research methodology. For example, the description of the role of the clusters in the reinforcement learning process is unclear as well as the role of PCA. It appears to have only been used to determine the number of clusters, which seems like an odd criteria for selecting a number of clusters.

-- We completely agree with the reviewer with regard to the manner in which the number of clusters selected was justified based on the PCA, and have included a formal cluster analysis (New Figure 2B), as well as description of additional clustering numbers in the Supplemental Figures (see above response to Reviewer 1 for additional details). As discussed in more detail below, these comments were very insightful for our team as we found a difference in consistency with actual decisions using smaller numbers of clusters.

My biggest concern regards the mismatch between the stated outcome of interest, "successful loading of dofetilide", and the reported outcome - percent agreement with physician dosing decisions. I am unable to reconcile this mismatch. It may be that there is great value in the research that was performed. However, the paper, as it currently stands, does not make that value clear to the reader.

-- The reviewer raises a very important point, which we have addressed in the revised discussion on page 10, about the different potential outcomes that can be used to develop an automated (machine-learning) model to guide dosing of dofetilide during loading. The overall goal of this investigation was to identify an approach that would lead to the greatest probability of a successful load, acknowledging that there are indeed safety reasons that certain patients may not be successfully loaded on dofetilide (QT prolongation), but that there may be some room to improve the process of finding the ‘right’ dose for a patient that provides the lowest degree of toxicity while maximizing the clinical efficacy (primarily suppression of atrial fibrillation in this case).

In this largely explorative investigation, we examined several machine-learning approaches to improve the probability of a successful load, based on supervised learning (attempting to mimic the decision-making process of clinicians) and reinforcement learning (using feedback in the form of rewards to determine whether to change or keep the same dose at each dosing time point). In order to compare models, we selected the outcome of consistency with the actual decision made by clinicians as a surrogate to the overall goal of a successful load since this single outcome was associated with the highest probability of a successful load in univariate logistic regression models (Table 2). For supervised learning approaches, it was a moot issue as none of the models performed better than a naïve classifier (always keep the same dose) in terms of accuracy and other classification metrics (Table 3). However, for examination of the reinforcement learning models, we noted that use of a smaller number of clusters (k = 4 and k = 6) resulted in less consistency with clinician decisions, to which the reviewer’s point is well-taken that consistency with the actual decision may not indeed be the best for comparing models. Reinforcement learning models are created using rewards assigned according to the overall goal of a successful load, and ultimately, true validation would require prospective application of the model, with dose-decisions based on the model (Q table), which was beyond the scope of our investigation, although planned for future studies.

Submitted filename: ML_Dofetilide, Response_to_reviews, 4NOV2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Dec 2019

Applications of Machine Learning in Decision Analysis for Dose Management for Dofetilide

PONE-D-19-17964R1

Dear Dr. Rosenberg,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Randall Lee Rasmusson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed all my comments properly, so I have no further concerns.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

20 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-17964R1

Applications of Machine Learning in Decision Analysis for Dose Management for Dofetilide

Dear Dr. Rosenberg:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Randall Lee Rasmusson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE