Nathan Brajer1,2, Brian Cozzi1,3, Michael Gao1, Marshall Nichols1, Mike Revoir1, Suresh Balu1,2, Joseph Futoma3,4, Jonathan Bae5, Noppon Setji5, Adrian Hernandez2,5, Mark Sendak1. 1. Duke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 4. John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
Importance: The ability to accurately predict in-hospital mortality for patients at the time of admission could improve clinical and operational decision-making and outcomes. Few of the machine learning models that have been developed to predict in-hospital death are both broadly applicable to all adult patients across a health system and readily implementable. Similarly, few have been implemented, and none have been evaluated prospectively and externally validated. Objectives: To prospectively and externally validate a machine learning model that predicts in-hospital mortality for all adult patients at the time of hospital admission and to design the model using commonly available electronic health record data and accessible computational methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, electronic health record data from a total of 43 180 hospitalizations representing 31 003 unique adult patients admitted to a quaternary academic hospital (hospital A) from October 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, formed a training and validation cohort. The model was further validated in additional cohorts spanning from March 1, 2018, to August 31, 2018, using 16 122 hospitalizations representing 13 094 unique adult patients admitted to hospital A, 6586 hospitalizations representing 5613 unique adult patients admitted to hospital B, and 4086 hospitalizations representing 3428 unique adult patients admitted to hospital C. The model was integrated into the production electronic health record system and prospectively validated on a cohort of 5273 hospitalizations representing 4525 unique adult patients admitted to hospital A between February 14, 2019, and April 15, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Model performance was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision recall curve. Results: A total of 75 247 hospital admissions (median [interquartile range] patient age, 59.5 [29.0] years; 45.9% involving male patients) were included in the study. The in-hospital mortality rates for the training validation; retrospective validations at hospitals A, B, and C; and prospective validation cohorts were 3.0%, 2.7%, 1.8%, 2.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.87), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90), respectively. The area under the precision recall curves were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.37), 0.17 (95% CI, 0.13-0.22), 0.22 (95% CI, 0.14-0.31), 0.13 (95% CI, 0.08-0.21), and 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09-0.21), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Prospective and multisite retrospective evaluations of a machine learning model demonstrated good discrimination of in-hospital mortality for adult patients at the time of admission. The data elements, methods, and patient selection make the model implementable at a system level.
Importance: The ability to accurately predict in-hospital mortality for patients at the time of admission could improve clinical and operational decision-making and outcomes. Few of the machine learning models that have been developed to predict in-hospital death are both broadly applicable to all adult patients across a health system and readily implementable. Similarly, few have been implemented, and none have been evaluated prospectively and externally validated. Objectives: To prospectively and externally validate a machine learning model that predicts in-hospital mortality for all adult patients at the time of hospital admission and to design the model using commonly available electronic health record data and accessible computational methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, electronic health record data from a total of 43 180 hospitalizations representing 31 003 unique adult patients admitted to a quaternary academic hospital (hospital A) from October 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, formed a training and validation cohort. The model was further validated in additional cohorts spanning from March 1, 2018, to August 31, 2018, using 16 122 hospitalizations representing 13 094 unique adult patients admitted to hospital A, 6586 hospitalizations representing 5613 unique adult patients admitted to hospital B, and 4086 hospitalizations representing 3428 unique adult patients admitted to hospital C. The model was integrated into the production electronic health record system and prospectively validated on a cohort of 5273 hospitalizations representing 4525 unique adult patients admitted to hospital A between February 14, 2019, and April 15, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Model performance was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision recall curve. Results: A total of 75 247 hospital admissions (median [interquartile range] patient age, 59.5 [29.0] years; 45.9% involving male patients) were included in the study. The in-hospital mortality rates for the training validation; retrospective validations at hospitals A, B, and C; and prospective validation cohorts were 3.0%, 2.7%, 1.8%, 2.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.87), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90), respectively. The area under the precision recall curves were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.37), 0.17 (95% CI, 0.13-0.22), 0.22 (95% CI, 0.14-0.31), 0.13 (95% CI, 0.08-0.21), and 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09-0.21), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Prospective and multisite retrospective evaluations of a machine learning model demonstrated good discrimination of in-hospital mortality for adult patients at the time of admission. The data elements, methods, and patient selection make the model implementable at a system level.
Authors: Brian J Douthit; Rachel L Walden; Kenrick Cato; Cynthia P Coviak; Christopher Cruz; Fabio D'Agostino; Thompson Forbes; Grace Gao; Theresa A Kapetanovic; Mikyoung A Lee; Lisiane Pruinelli; Mary A Schultz; Ann Wieben; Alvin D Jeffery Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Christopher R Manz; Maria N Nelson; Chalanda N Evans; Susan H Regli; Nina O'Connor; Lynn M Schuchter; Lawrence N Shulman; Mitesh S Patel; Joanna Paladino; Judy A Shea Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jae Yong Yu; Feng Xie; Liu Nan; Sunyoung Yoon; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Yih Yng Ng; Won Chul Cha Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Eduardo A Trujillo Rivera; James M Chamberlain; Anita K Patel; Hiroki Morizono; Julia A Heneghan; Murray M Pollack Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.971
Authors: Rajiv Agarwal; Henry J Domenico; Sreenivasa R Balla; Daniel W Byrne; Jennifer G Whisenant; Marcella C Woods; Barbara J Martin; Mohana B Karlekar; Marc L Bennett Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Christopher Nielson; Martin G Seneviratne; Joseph R Ledsam; Shakir Mohamed; Nenad Tomašev; Natalie Harris; Sebastien Baur; Anne Mottram; Xavier Glorot; Jack W Rae; Michal Zielinski; Harry Askham; Andre Saraiva; Valerio Magliulo; Clemens Meyer; Suman Ravuri; Ivan Protsyuk; Alistair Connell; Cían O Hughes; Alan Karthikesalingam; Julien Cornebise; Hugh Montgomery; Geraint Rees; Chris Laing; Clifton R Baker; Thomas F Osborne; Ruth Reeves; Demis Hassabis; Dominic King; Mustafa Suleyman; Trevor Back Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Richard John Woodman; Kimberley Bryant; Michael J Sorich; Alberto Pilotto; Arduino Aleksander Mangoni Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 5.428