Department of Research, Arkin Mental Health Care, Klaprozenweg 111, 1033NN, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Trimbos Institute, The Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521VS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Dec 10;20(1):332. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01361-1.
Accurate prediction models for whether patients on the verge of a psychiatric criseis need hospitalization are lacking and machine learning methods may help improve the accuracy of psychiatric hospitalization prediction models. In this paper we evaluate the accuracy of ten machine learning algorithms, including the generalized linear model (GLM/logistic regression) to predict psychiatric hospitalization in the first 12 months after a psychiatric crisis care contact. We also evaluate an ensemble model to optimize the accuracy and we explore individual predictors of hospitalization.
Data from 2084 patients included in the longitudinal Amsterdam Study of Acute Psychiatry with at least one reported psychiatric crisis care contact were included. Target variable for the prediction models was whether the patient was hospitalized in the 12 months following inclusion. The predictive power of 39 variables related to patients' socio-demographics, clinical characteristics and previous mental health care contacts was evaluated. The accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the machine learning algorithms were compared and we also estimated the relative importance of each predictor variable. The best and least performing algorithms were compared with GLM/logistic regression using net reclassification improvement analysis and the five best performing algorithms were combined in an ensemble model using stacking.
All models performed above chance level. We found Gradient Boosting to be the best performing algorithm (AUC = 0.774) and K-Nearest Neighbors to be the least performing (AUC = 0.702). The performance of GLM/logistic regression (AUC = 0.76) was slightly above average among the tested algorithms. In a Net Reclassification Improvement analysis Gradient Boosting outperformed GLM/logistic regression by 2.9% and K-Nearest Neighbors by 11.3%. GLM/logistic regression outperformed K-Nearest Neighbors by 8.7%. Nine of the top-10 most important predictor variables were related to previous mental health care use.
Gradient Boosting led to the highest predictive accuracy and AUC while GLM/logistic regression performed average among the tested algorithms. Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the differences between the machine learning algorithms was in most cases modest. The results show that a predictive accuracy similar to the best performing model can be achieved when combining multiple algorithms in an ensemble model.
目前缺乏针对处于精神危机边缘的患者是否需要住院治疗的准确预测模型,而机器学习方法可能有助于提高精神科住院预测模型的准确性。本文评估了十种机器学习算法的准确性,包括广义线性模型(GLM/逻辑回归),以预测精神危机护理接触后 12 个月内的精神科住院情况。我们还评估了一个集成模型来优化准确性,并探索了住院的个体预测因子。
本研究纳入了 2084 名患者的数据,这些患者均来自阿姆斯特丹急性精神病学纵向研究,且至少有一次报告的精神危机护理接触。预测模型的目标变量是患者在纳入后的 12 个月内是否住院。评估了 39 个与患者社会人口统计学、临床特征和以前精神卫生保健接触相关的变量对预测模型的预测能力。比较了机器学习算法的准确性和受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC),并估计了每个预测变量的相对重要性。使用净重新分类改进分析比较了最佳和表现最差的算法与 GLM/逻辑回归,使用堆叠法将表现最好的五个算法组合成一个集成模型。
所有模型的表现均优于机会水平。我们发现梯度提升算法表现最好(AUC=0.774),K-最近邻算法表现最差(AUC=0.702)。GLM/逻辑回归的表现略高于测试算法的平均水平(AUC=0.76)。在净重新分类改进分析中,梯度提升算法比 GLM/逻辑回归高出 2.9%,比 K-最近邻高出 11.3%。GLM/逻辑回归比 K-最近邻高出 8.7%。前 10 个最重要的预测变量中有 9 个与以前的精神卫生保健使用有关。
梯度提升算法导致了最高的预测准确性和 AUC,而 GLM/逻辑回归在测试算法中表现平均。尽管统计学上有显著差异,但机器学习算法之间的差异幅度在大多数情况下较小。结果表明,当将多个算法组合在一个集成模型中时,可以实现与表现最好的模型相似的预测准确性。