| Literature DB >> 34957004 |
Tien Yun Yang1, Pin-Yu Kuo2, Yaoru Huang3,4,5, Hsiao-Wei Lin3, Shwetambara Malwade6, Long-Sheng Lu4,5,7,8, Lung-Wen Tsai9, Shabbir Syed-Abdul6,10,11, Chia-Wei Sun2, Jeng-Fong Chiou3,4,8,12.
Abstract
Survival prediction is highly valued in end-of-life care clinical practice, and patient performance status evaluation stands as a predominant component in survival prognostication. While current performance status evaluation tools are limited to their subjective nature, the advent of wearable technology enables continual recordings of patients' activity and has the potential to measure performance status objectively. We hypothesize that wristband actigraphy monitoring devices can predict in-hospital death of end-stage cancer patients during the time of their hospital admissions. The objective of this study was to train and validate a long short-term memory (LSTM) deep-learning prediction model based on activity data of wearable actigraphy devices. The study recruited 60 end-stage cancer patients in a hospice care unit, with 28 deaths and 32 discharged in stable condition at the end of their hospital stay. The standard Karnofsky Performance Status score had an overall prognostic accuracy of 0.83. The LSTM prediction model based on patients' continual actigraphy monitoring had an overall prognostic accuracy of 0.83. Furthermore, the model performance improved with longer input data length up to 48 h. In conclusion, our research suggests the potential feasibility of wristband actigraphy to predict end-of-life admission outcomes in palliative care for end-stage cancer patients. Clinical Trial Registration: The study protocol was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04883879).Entities:
Keywords: actigraphy; deep learning; long short-term memory networks; palliative care; performance status; prognostic accuracy; survival prediction; wearable technology
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34957004 PMCID: PMC8695752 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.730150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1The basic architecture (A) and data pre-processing and architectural flow (B) of the Long Short-Term Memory model. Symbol x and h represent the input and output values of the LSTM cell. Symbol c represents the value of the memory cell in each LSTM cell. Subscript t represents the time step.
Patient demographics and characteristics at baseline visit.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| • Mean | 72.9 | |
| • SD | 12.2 | |
| • Range | 45–94 | |
| • Male | 37 (61.67%) | |
| • Female | 23 (38.33%) | |
| • Gastrointestinal system | 26 (43.33%) | |
| • Lung | 12 (20.00%) | |
| • Genitourinary system | 10 (16.67%) | |
| • Gynecological system | 5 (8.33%) | |
| • Breast | 3 (5%) | |
| • Head and neck | 2 (3.33%) | |
| • Central nervous system | 2 (3.33%) | |
| Patients with comorbidities, | 46 (76.67%) | |
|
| ||
| • Median (IQR) | 10 (5–15) | |
|
| ||
| • Death | 28 (46.67%) | |
| • In stable condition | 32 (53.33%) | |
| Death | Discharged in stable condition | |
| • KPS < 50% | 23 (38.98%) | 5 (8.47%) |
| • KPS ≥ 50% | 5 (8.47%) | 26 (44.07%) |
| Death | Discharged in stable condition | |
| • PPI > 6.0 | 8 (40.00%) | 0 (0.00%) |
| • PPI ≤ 6.0 | 1 (5.00%) | 11(55.00%) |
Figure 2The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve of Karnofsky Performance Status (blue) and Palliative Prognostic Index (green).
Figure 3The representative activity pattern of patients with clinical outcomes of death (A) and discharged in stable condition (B). The red points on the graph indicated that the patient had taken off the device.
Details of the dataset for the preliminary and final LSTM models.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Discharged in stable condition | 15 (34.09%) | - | 8 (18.18%) | 23 |
| Death | 15 (34.09%) | - | 6 (13.64%) | 21 |
| Total | 30 | - | 14 | 44 |
|
| ||||
| Discharged in stable condition | 16 (36.36%) | 4 (9.09%) | 3 (6.82%) | 23 |
| Death | 14 (31.82%) | 4 (9.09%) | 3 (6.82%) | 21 |
| Total | 30 | 8 | 6 | 44 |
Figure 4Confusion matrices of the preliminary prediction model. (A): Confusion matrix of the testing dataset, with normalization. (B): Confusion matrix of the testing dataset, without normalization.
Figure 5Confusion matrices of the final prediction model. (A) Confusion matrix of the testing dataset, with normalization. (B) Confusion matrix of the testing dataset, without normalization.
Model performance with different input data lengths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary model 48 h | 0.8667 | N/A | 0.7143 | 0.8333 | 0.625 | 0.625 | 0.8333 | 0.7292 |
| Preliminary model 24 h | 0.8333 | N/A | 0.6429 | 0.6667 | 0.625 | 0.5714 | 0.7143 | 0.6458 |
| Final model 48 h | 0.9667 | 0.75 | 0.8333 | 1.0 | 0.6667 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 0.8333 |
| Final model 24 h | 0.9333 | 0.625 | 0.6667 | 0.6667 | 0.6667 | 0.6667 | 0.6667 | 0.6667 |
ACC: accuracy.
PPV: positive predictive value.
NPV: negative predictive value.
AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.