Literature DB >> 35234175

Systematic Review and Comparison of Publicly Available ICU Data Sets-A Decision Guide for Clinicians and Data Scientists.

Christopher M Sauer1,2, Tariq A Dam1, Leo A Celi1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, Martin Faltys5, Miguel A A de la Hoz2,3,6, Lasith Adhikari7, Kirsten A Ziesemer8, Armand Girbes1, Patrick J Thoral1, Paul Elbers1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: As data science and artificial intelligence continue to rapidly gain traction, the publication of freely available ICU datasets has become invaluable to propel data-driven clinical research. In this guide for clinicians and researchers, we aim to: 1) systematically search and identify all publicly available adult clinical ICU datasets, 2) compare their characteristics, data quality, and richness and critically appraise their strengths and weaknesses, and 3) provide researchers with suggestions, which datasets are appropriate for answering their clinical question. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was performed in Pubmed, ArXiv, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv. STUDY SELECTION: We selected all studies that reported on publicly available adult patient-level intensive care datasets. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of four publicly available, adult, critical care, patient-level databases were included (Amsterdam University Medical Center data base [AmsterdamUMCdb], eICU Collaborative Research Database eICU CRD], High time-resolution intensive care unit dataset [HiRID], and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV). Databases were compared using a priori defined categories, including demographics, patient characteristics, and data richness. The study protocol and search strategy were prospectively registered. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four ICU databases fulfilled all criteria for inclusion and were queried using SQL (PostgreSQL version 12; PostgreSQL Global Development Group) and analyzed using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The number of unique patient admissions varied between 23,106 (AmsterdamUMCdb) and 200,859 (eICU-CRD). Frequency of laboratory values and vital signs was highest in HiRID, for example, 5.2 (±3.4) lactate values per day and 29.7 (±10.2) systolic blood pressure values per hour. Treatment intensity varied with vasopressor and ventilatory support in 69.0% and 83.0% of patients in AmsterdamUMCdb versus 12.0% and 21.0% in eICU-CRD, respectively. ICU mortality ranged from 5.5% in eICU-CRD to 9.9% in AmsterdamUMCdb.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified four publicly available adult clinical ICU datasets. Sample size, severity of illness, treatment intensity, and frequency of reported parameters differ markedly between the databases. This should guide clinicians and researchers which databases to best answer their clinical questions.
Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35234175      PMCID: PMC9150442          DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005517

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   9.296


  18 in total

1.  ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF THE CRITICALLY ILL.

Authors:  R M FARRIER
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  1964-04       Impact factor: 1.437

Review 2.  Telemetry in medicine and biology.

Authors:  C A Caceres
Journal:  Adv Biomed Eng Med Phys       Date:  1968

Review 3.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

Authors:  D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Early prediction of circulatory failure in the intensive care unit using machine learning.

Authors:  Stephanie L Hyland; Martin Faltys; Matthias Hüser; Xinrui Lyu; Thomas Gumbsch; Cristóbal Esteban; Christian Bock; Max Horn; Michael Moor; Bastian Rieck; Marc Zimmermann; Dean Bodenham; Karsten Borgwardt; Gunnar Rätsch; Tobias M Merz
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 53.440

5.  Characterizing the Patients, Hospitals, and Data Quality of the eICU Collaborative Research Database.

Authors:  Heather M O'Halloran; Kenneth Kwong; Richard A Veldhoen; David M Maslove
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 6.  Critical Care, Critical Data.

Authors:  Christopher V Cosgriff; Leo Anthony Celi; David J Stone
Journal:  Biomed Eng Comput Biol       Date:  2019-06-12

7.  Machine learning can accurately predict pre-admission baseline hemoglobin and creatinine in intensive care patients.

Authors:  Antonin Dauvin; Carolina Donado; Patrik Bachtiger; Ke-Chun Huang; Christopher Martin Sauer; Daniele Ramazzotti; Matteo Bonvini; Leo Anthony Celi; Molly J Douglas
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2019-11-29

8.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database.

Authors:  Alistair E W Johnson; Tom J Pollard; Lu Shen; Li-Wei H Lehman; Mengling Feng; Mohammad Ghassemi; Benjamin Moody; Peter Szolovits; Leo Anthony Celi; Roger G Mark
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 6.444

10.  The eICU Collaborative Research Database, a freely available multi-center database for critical care research.

Authors:  Tom J Pollard; Alistair E W Johnson; Jesse D Raffa; Leo A Celi; Roger G Mark; Omar Badawi
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 6.444

View more
  3 in total

1.  The Anion Gap and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with Hip Fractures.

Authors:  Xiao-Bo Zhang; Wu-Bin Shu; A-Bing Li; Guan-Hua Lan
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.009

2.  Systematic Review and Comparison of Publicly Available ICU Data Sets-A Decision Guide for Clinicians and Data Scientists.

Authors:  Christopher M Sauer; Tariq A Dam; Leo A Celi; Martin Faltys; Miguel A A de la Hoz; Lasith Adhikari; Kirsten A Ziesemer; Armand Girbes; Patrick J Thoral; Paul Elbers
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 9.296

3.  Algorithmic fairness audits in intensive care medicine: artificial intelligence for all?

Authors:  Davy van de Sande; Jasper van Bommel; Eline Fung Fen Chung; Diederik Gommers; Michel E van Genderen
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 19.334

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.