| Literature DB >> 34327210 |
Hong Zhao1, Jiaming You2, Yuexing Peng2, Yi Feng1.
Abstract
Background: Elderly patients undergoing hip fracture repair surgery are at increased risk of delirium due to aging, comorbidities, and frailty. But current methods for identifying the high risk of delirium among hospitalized patients have moderate accuracy and require extra questionnaires. Artificial intelligence makes it possible to establish machine learning models that predict incident delirium risk based on electronic health data.Entities:
Keywords: delirium; elderly; hip fracture; machine learning; surgery
Year: 2021 PMID: 34327210 PMCID: PMC8313764 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.634629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1Trial profile and diagram of machine learning model construction. (A) Trial profile. (B) Diagram of machine learning model construction. AIMS, Anesthesia Information Management System. The complete dataset was split into the training set and test set. The machine learning methods were trained on the training set and applied to the test set for validation and reaching accuracy of prediction. K-fold cross-validation method was deployed (k = 5) to accomplish internal validation and performance evaluation, which divides the training dataset into k-folds, with 39 patients each in fold 1 to fold 4 and 40 patients in fold 5, respectively.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of perioperative data.
| Age (yr) | 79.3 (7.6) | 80.0 (7.1) | −0.613 | 0.540 | |||
| Male [ | 9 (30%) | 56 (26.0%) | 0.211 | 0.646 | |||
| Height (cm) | 159.8 (7.9) | 160.0 (8.1) | −0.159 | 0.874 | |||
| Weight (kg) | 57.7 (11.1) | 57.9 (11.3) | 0.032 | 0.975 | |||
| BMI | 22.5 (3.8) | 22.6 (4.3) | 0.10 | 0.919 | |||
| ASA | 3.202 | 0.362 | |||||
| | 0 (0%) | 6 (2.8%) | |||||
| | 21 (70%) | 129 (60%) | |||||
| | 8 (26.7%) | 78 (36.3%) | |||||
| | 1 (3.3%) | 2 (0.9%) | |||||
| Hypertension | 19 (63.3%) | 131 (60.9%) | 0.064 | 0.844 | |||
| Diabetes | 7 (23.3%) | 53 (24.7%) | 0.025 | 1.0 | |||
| Coronary artery disease | 5 (16.7%) | 62 (28.8%) | 1.963 | 0.194 | |||
| Dementia/History of stroke | 12 (40%) | 40 (18.6%) | 7.208 | 0.015 | 3.063 | 1.231 | 7.624 |
| Frailty index | 2.1 (1.0) | 1.9 (1.0) | −0.810 | 0.418 | |||
| Hematocrit | 0.32 (0.06) | 0.33 (0.06) | −1.235 | 0.226 | |||
| Albumin (g•dl−1) | 34.8 (4.1) | 35.9 (3.6) | 1.455 | 0.147 | |||
| Creatinine (umol•l −1) | 84 (39) | 63 (31) | −0.794 | 0.427 | |||
| Diagnosis | 5.478 | 0.242 | |||||
| | 6 (20%) | 75 (34.9%) | |||||
| | 19 (63.3%) | 116 (53.9%) | |||||
| | 5 (16.7%) | 24 (11.2%) | |||||
| Surgical procedure | 2.646 | 0.266 | |||||
| | 4 (13.3%) | 48 (22.3%) | |||||
| | 2 (6.7%) | 27 (12.6%) | |||||
| | 24 (80%) | 140 (65.1%) | |||||
| General anesthesia [ | 8 (26.7%) | 25 (11.6%) | 5.109 | 0.04 | 2.788 | 0.966 | 8.047 |
| Blood gas analysis | |||||||
| | 7.44 (0.04) | 7.45 (0.03) | 0.961 | 0.338 | |||
| | 70 (33.2) | 77.4 (14.3) | −0.176 | 0.861 | |||
| Duration of surgery (min) | 130 (100) | 75 (40) | −2.390 | 0.017 | |||
| Duration of anesthesia (min) | 228 (93) | 163 (45) | −2.413 | 0.016 | 1.009 | 0.998 | 1.019 |
| Infused volume (100 ml) | 12 (5.63) | 9 (5) | −1.924 | 0.054 | 0.988 | 0.914 | 1.067 |
| Blood loss (ml) | 200 (250) | 100 (135) | −1.076 | 0.282 | |||
| Intraoperative red cell Infusion (ml) | 0 (150) | 0 (0) | −2.546 | 0.011 | |||
| Intraoperative fresh frozen plasma infusion (ml) | 0 (400) | 0 (0) | −3.576 | <0.001 | |||
| Patients received intraoperative blood products [ | 10 (33.3%) | 31 (14.4%) | 6.759 | 0.017 | 2.631 | 1.055 | 6.559 |
| Postoperative red cell Infusion (ml) | 200 (400) | 0 (1000) | −3.813 | <0.001 | |||
| Postoperative fresh frozen plasma infusion (ml) | 0 (400) | 0 (0) | −4.012 | <0.001 | |||
| Patients received postoperative blood products [ | 16 (53.3%) | 42 (19.5%) | 16.6 | <0.001 | |||
| Preparation time (Days) | 3 (2) | 2 (3) | −2.822 | 0.04 | 1.476 | 1.170 | 1.862 |
| Postoperative length of stay (Days) | 13 (6) | 8 (7) | −2.477 | 0.013 | |||
| Doses of vasopressors | 0 (1) | 1 (2) | 0.354 | 0.722 | |||
| ICU admittance [ | 5 (16.6%) | 19 (8.8%) | 0.177 | 0.189 | |||
| Pneumonia [ | 5 (15.1%) | 32 (15.0%) | 0.0001 | 0.993 | |||
| DVT/PE [ | 2 (6.0%) | 0 (0%) | 14.451 | 0.017 |
Values are mean (SD) or number (proportion) or median (IQR). PFNA, proximal femoral nail antirotation; Frailty index, the sum of the following frail conditions, age >70, preoperative body mass index <18.5, hematocrit <35%, albumin <3.4 g•dl.
P < 0.05.
Multivariate analysis of Postoperative Delirium Preparation time was defined as the calendar days between the diagnosis of hip fracture and surgery.
| Dementia/History of stroke | 1.120 | 0.465 | 5.792 | 0.016 | 3.063 | 1.231 | 7.624 |
| General anesthesia | 1.025 | 0.541 | 3.595 | 0.058 | 2.788 | 0.966 | 8.047 |
| Duration of Anesthesia (min) | 0.009 | 0.005 | 2.658 | 0.103 | 1.009 | 0.998 | 1.019 |
| Intraoperative fluid infusion (ml) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.176 | 0.675 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 1.001 |
| Patients received blood transfusion | 0.967 | 0.466 | 4.307 | 0.038 | 2.631 | 1.055 | 6.559 |
| Preparation time (Days) | 0.389 | 0.119 | 10.576 | 0.001 | 1.476 | 1.170 | 1.862 |
P < 0.05.
Confusion matrix of machine learning models.
| Random forest | 85.71% | 16.28% | 83.72% | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| XGBoost | 83.67% | 13.95% | 86.05% | 33.34% | 66.66% |
| SVM | 87.75% | 11.63% | 88.37% | 16.67% | 83.33% |
| MLP | 85.71% | 13.95% | 86.05% | 16.67% | 83.33% |
Accuracy, (True true + true false)/ALL.
XGBoosting, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; SVM, support vector machine; MLP, multilayer perception.
Figure 2The receiver of the curve of multivariate logistic regression and performance of four machine learning models. The true positive rate-false positive rate of different machine learning models was depicted, locating to the left of and above the ROC curve of logistic regression, indicating the better performance of machine learning models than logistic regression. XGBoosting, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; SVM, support vector machine; MLP, multilayer perception.
Figure 3The correlation coefficient of different variables detected by machine learning methods. A correlation coefficient is a number between −1 and +1 calculated to represent the linear dependence of the variable and event. The predictor variable with the largest coefficient is considered as the most important predictor; and the predictor variable with the next largest correlation coefficient as the next important variable, and so on.