| Literature DB >> 34900198 |
Ming Li1, HuiLin Chen1, ShuYing Yan1, Xiao Xu1, HuaJuan Xu1.
Abstract
The Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is an important unit for the rescue of critically ill patients in hospitals, and patient mortality is an important indicator to measure the level of ICU treatment. Currently, a variety of clinical scoring systems are used to evaluate the patient's condition and predict survival, but these systems require a lot of resources. However, due to the rapid development of artificial intelligence and deep learning, machine learning based methods have been used to study the survival prediction of ICU patients. Additionally, these methods have made significant progress, but there is still a distance from clinical application, and equally metric interpretability of the deep learning method is not very mature. Therefore, in this paper, we have proposed a predicting model for the life and death of ICU patients, which is primarily based on the Fuzzy ARTMAP model. With a thorough analysis of the existing ICU patient condition assessment and life and death prediction methods, we have observed that patient's ICU monitoring information performs integrated analysis and extracts features according to the clinical characteristics of physiological indicators. Finally, fuzzy ARTMAP neural network is used to predict the life and death of patients. Likewise, prediction results are combined with the clinical scoring system and logistic regression, artificial neural network, support vector machine, and AdaBoost. Experimental results of these algorithms were compared, which verifies that the proposed method has outperformed the existing model. The main purpose of the proposed mode is to design a life and death prediction method for ICU patients, which has high predictive performance and is an acceptable method for clinical medical staff, where ICU monitoring data is used. Experimental results show that the method proposed has achieved better prediction performance and accuracy ratio, which provide theoretical reference for clinical application.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34900198 PMCID: PMC8654556 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6169481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Framework of Prediction based on Fuzzy ARTMAP.
Figure 2Competition-cooperation network interactive model.
Figure 3Structural diagram of fuzzy ARTMAP.
Figure 4Flow chart of data filling methods.
Prediction results of filling method with normal value.
| Item |
|
| min( |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 73.86 | 65.11 | 65.11 |
| 2 | 51.59 | 63.78 | 51.59 |
| 3 | 67.38 | 66.01 | 66.01 |
| 4 | 63.77 | 54.08 | 54.08 |
| 5 | 61.49 | 65.13 | 61.49 |
| Ave | 63.62 | 62.82 | 59.66 |
Prediction results of filling method with mean value.
| Item |
|
| min( |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 56.08 | 67.09 | 56.08 |
| 2 | 47.54 | 71.34 | 47.54 |
| 3 | 71.33 | 59.01 | 59.01 |
| 4 | 65.98 | 58.31 | 58.31 |
| 5 | 51.24 | 57.25 | 51.24 |
| Ave | 58.43 | 62.60 | 54.44 |
Prediction results of filling method with binary value.
| Item |
|
| min( |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 68.55 | 45.31 | 45.31 |
| 2 | 58.69 | 53.19 | 53.19 |
| 3 | 54.98 | 48.87 | 48.87 |
| 4 | 50.15 | 60.13 | 50.15 |
| 5 | 40.17 | 62.94 | 40.17 |
| Ave | 54.51 | 54.10 | 47.54 |
Evaluation on different filling methods.
| Method |
|
| min( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 63.62 | 62.82 | 59.66 |
| Mean | 58.43 | 62.60 | 54.44 |
| Binary | 54.51 | 54.10 | 47.54 |
Prediction results with different methods.
| Method | min( |
|---|---|
| SAPS | 30.54 |
| ANN | 48.87 |
| SVM | 52.57 |
| Logistic regression | 55.08 |
| Fuzzy ARTMAP | 59.66 |
| AdaBoost | 78.56 |