Rau Cheng-Shyuan, Wu Shao-Chun, Chuang Jung-Fang, Huang Chun-Ying, Liu Hang-Tsung, Chien Peng-Chen, Hsieh Ching-Hua
Department of Neurosurgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
J Clin Med. 2019 Jun 5;8(6):799. doi: 10.3390/jcm8060799.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to build a model using machine learning for the prediction of survival in trauma patients and compared these model predictions to those predicted by the most commonly used algorithm, the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS). METHODS: Enrolled hospitalized trauma patients from 2009 to 2016 were divided into a training dataset (70% of the original data set) for generation of a plausible model under supervised classification, and a test dataset (30% of the original data set) to test the performance of the model. The training and test datasets comprised 13,208 (12,871 survival and 337 mortality) and 5603 (5473 survival and 130 mortality) patients, respectively. With the provision of additional information such as pre-existing comorbidity status or laboratory data, logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), and neural network (NN) (with the Stuttgart Neural Network Simulator (RSNNS)) were used to build models of survival prediction and compared to the predictive performance of TRISS. Predictive performance was evaluated by accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, as well as by area under the curve (AUC) measures of receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: In the validation dataset, NN and the TRISS presented the highest score (82.0%) for balanced accuracy, followed by SVM (75.2%) and LR (71.8%) models. In the test dataset, NN had the highest balanced accuracy (75.1%), followed by the TRISS (70.2%), SVM (70.6%), and LR (68.9%) models. All four models (LR, SVM, NN, and TRISS) exhibited a high accuracy of more than 97.5% and a sensitivity of more than 98.6%. However, NN exhibited the highest specificity (51.5%), followed by the TRISS (41.5%), SVM (40.8%), and LR (38.5%) models. CONCLUSIONS: These four models (LR, SVM, NN, and TRISS) exhibited a similar high accuracy and sensitivity in predicting the survival of the trauma patients. In the test dataset, the NN model had the highest balanced accuracy and predictive specificity.
背景:我们旨在构建一个使用机器学习预测创伤患者生存情况的模型,并将这些模型预测结果与最常用的算法——创伤和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)所预测的结果进行比较。 方法:纳入2009年至2016年住院的创伤患者,将其分为训练数据集(占原始数据集的70%)用于在监督分类下生成一个合理的模型,以及测试数据集(占原始数据集的30%)用于测试模型的性能。训练数据集和测试数据集分别包含13208例患者(12871例存活,337例死亡)和5603例患者(5473例存活,130例死亡)。在提供诸如既往合并症状态或实验室数据等额外信息的情况下,使用逻辑回归(LR)、支持向量机(SVM)和神经网络(NN)(使用斯图加特神经网络模拟器(RSNNS))构建生存预测模型,并与TRISS的预测性能进行比较。通过准确性、敏感性和特异性以及通过受试者操作特征曲线的曲线下面积(AUC)测量来评估预测性能。 结果:在验证数据集中,NN和TRISS的平衡准确性得分最高(82.0%),其次是SVM(75.2%)和LR(71.8%)模型。在测试数据集中,NN的平衡准确性最高(
J Clin Med. 2019-6-5
Neurosurg Focus. 2018-11-1
Front Oncol. 2022-7-6
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2022-10
J Crit Care Med (Targu Mures). 2024-7-31
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023-10-9
Anesthesiol Clin. 2019-3
Biomed J. 2017-4