Stefanie Jauk1,2, Diether Kramer1, Birgit Großauer3, Susanne Rienmüller3, Alexander Avian2, Andrea Berghold2, Werner Leodolter1, Stefan Schulz2. 1. Department of Information and Process Management, Steiermärkische Krankenanstaltengesellschaft m.b.H. (KAGes), Graz, Austria. 2. Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Steiermärkische Krankenanstaltengesellschaft m.b.H. (KAGes) LKH Graz II, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Machine learning models trained on electronic health records have achieved high prognostic accuracy in test datasets, but little is known about their embedding into clinical workflows. We implemented a random forest-based algorithm to identify hospitalized patients at high risk for delirium, and evaluated its performance in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Delirium was predicted at admission and recalculated on the evening of admission. The defined prediction outcome was a delirium coded for the recent hospital stay. During 7 months of prospective evaluation, 5530 predictions were analyzed. In addition, 119 predictions for internal medicine patients were compared with ratings of clinical experts in a blinded and nonblinded setting. RESULTS: During clinical application, the algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 74.1% and a specificity of 82.2%. Discrimination on prospective data (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve = 0.86) was as good as in the test dataset, but calibration was poor. The predictions correlated strongly with delirium risk perceived by experts in the blinded (r = 0.81) and nonblinded (r = 0.62) settings. A major advantage of our setting was the timely prediction without additional data entry. DISCUSSION: The implemented machine learning algorithm achieved a stable performance predicting delirium in high agreement with expert ratings, but improvement of calibration is needed. Future research should evaluate the acceptance of implemented machine learning algorithms by health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new insights into the implementation process of a machine learning algorithm into a clinical workflow and demonstrates its predictive power for delirium.
OBJECTIVE: Machine learning models trained on electronic health records have achieved high prognostic accuracy in test datasets, but little is known about their embedding into clinical workflows. We implemented a random forest-based algorithm to identify hospitalized patients at high risk for delirium, and evaluated its performance in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Delirium was predicted at admission and recalculated on the evening of admission. The defined prediction outcome was a delirium coded for the recent hospital stay. During 7 months of prospective evaluation, 5530 predictions were analyzed. In addition, 119 predictions for internal medicine patients were compared with ratings of clinical experts in a blinded and nonblinded setting. RESULTS: During clinical application, the algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 74.1% and a specificity of 82.2%. Discrimination on prospective data (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve = 0.86) was as good as in the test dataset, but calibration was poor. The predictions correlated strongly with delirium risk perceived by experts in the blinded (r = 0.81) and nonblinded (r = 0.62) settings. A major advantage of our setting was the timely prediction without additional data entry. DISCUSSION: The implemented machine learning algorithm achieved a stable performance predicting delirium in high agreement with expert ratings, but improvement of calibration is needed. Future research should evaluate the acceptance of implemented machine learning algorithms by health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new insights into the implementation process of a machine learning algorithm into a clinical workflow and demonstrates its predictive power for delirium.
Authors: Jan Talmon; Elske Ammenwerth; Jytte Brender; Nicolette de Keizer; Pirkko Nykänen; Michael Rigby Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Tammy T Hshieh; Jirong Yue; Esther Oh; Margaret Puelle; Sarah Dowal; Thomas Travison; Sharon K Inouye Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Diether Kramer; Sai Veeranki; Dieter Hayn; Franz Quehenberger; Werner Leodolter; Christian Jagsch; Günter Schreier Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2017
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons; Danielle A van der Windt; Jill A Hayden; Pablo Perel; Sara Schroter; Richard D Riley; Harry Hemingway; Douglas G Altman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Wendong Ge; Haitham Alabsi; Aayushee Jain; Elissa Ye; Haoqi Sun; Marta Fernandes; Colin Magdamo; Ryan A Tesh; Sarah I Collens; Amy Newhouse; Lidia Mvr Moura; Sahar Zafar; John Hsu; Oluwaseun Akeju; Gregory K Robbins; Shibani S Mukerji; Sudeshna Das; M Brandon Westover Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-06-24
Authors: Hong Sun; Kristof Depraetere; Laurent Meesseman; Patricia Cabanillas Silva; Ralph Szymanowsky; Janis Fliegenschmidt; Nikolai Hulde; Vera von Dossow; Martijn Vanbiervliet; Jos De Baerdemaeker; Diana M Roccaro-Waldmeyer; Jörg Stieg; Manuel Domínguez Hidalgo; Fried-Michael Dahlweid Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Stefanie Jauk; Diether Kramer; Alexander Avian; Andrea Berghold; Werner Leodolter; Stefan Schulz Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Honoria Ocagli; Daniele Bottigliengo; Giulia Lorenzoni; Danila Azzolina; Aslihan S Acar; Silvia Sorgato; Lucia Stivanello; Mario Degan; Dario Gregori Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 3.390