Department of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Patient Experience Management, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Aug 11;23(8):e23508. doi: 10.2196/23508.
BACKGROUND: Patient safety in the intensive care unit (ICU) is one of the most critical issues, and unplanned extubation (UE) is considered the most adverse event for patient safety. Prevention and early detection of such an event is an essential but difficult component of quality care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate prediction models for UE in ICU patients using machine learning. METHODS: This study was conducted in an academic tertiary hospital in Seoul, Republic of Korea. The hospital had approximately 2000 inpatient beds and 120 ICU beds. As of January 2019, the hospital had approximately 9000 outpatients on a daily basis. The number of annual ICU admissions was approximately 10,000. We conducted a retrospective study between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018. A total of 6914 extubation cases were included. We developed a UE prediction model using machine learning algorithms, which included random forest (RF), logistic regression (LR), artificial neural network (ANN), and support vector machine (SVM). For evaluating the model's performance, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1 score were also determined for each model. For performance evaluation, we also used a calibration curve, the Brier score, and the integrated calibration index (ICI) to compare different models. The potential clinical usefulness of the best model at the best threshold was assessed through a net benefit approach using a decision curve. RESULTS: Among the 6914 extubation cases, 248 underwent UE. In the UE group, there were more males than females, higher use of physical restraints, and fewer surgeries. The incidence of UE was higher during the night shift as compared to the planned extubation group. The rate of reintubation within 24 hours and hospital mortality were higher in the UE group. The UE prediction algorithm was developed, and the AUROC for RF was 0.787, for LR was 0.762, for ANN was 0.763, and for SVM was 0.740. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed and validated machine learning-based prediction models to predict UE in ICU patients using electronic health record data. The best AUROC was 0.787 and the sensitivity was 0.949, which was obtained using the RF algorithm. The RF model was well-calibrated, and the Brier score and ICI were 0.129 and 0.048, respectively. The proposed prediction model uses widely available variables to limit the additional workload on the clinician. Further, this evaluation suggests that the model holds potential for clinical usefulness.
背景:重症监护病房(ICU)的患者安全是最关键的问题之一,非计划性拔管(UE)被认为是对患者安全最不利的事件。预防和早期发现此类事件是质量护理的重要但困难的组成部分。
目的:本研究旨在使用机器学习开发和验证 ICU 患者 UE 的预测模型。
方法:本研究在韩国首尔的一家学术性三级医院进行。该医院有大约 2000 张住院病床和 120 张 ICU 病床。截至 2019 年 1 月,该医院每天有大约 9000 名门诊病人。每年 ICU 入院人数约为 10000 人。我们进行了一项回顾性研究,时间为 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日。共纳入 6914 例拔管病例。我们使用机器学习算法(包括随机森林(RF)、逻辑回归(LR)、人工神经网络(ANN)和支持向量机(SVM))开发了 UE 预测模型。为了评估模型的性能,我们使用了接收器工作特征曲线(AUROC)下的面积。还为每个模型确定了灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和 F1 分数。为了进行性能评估,我们还使用校准曲线、Brier 评分和综合校准指数(ICI)来比较不同的模型。通过使用决策曲线评估最佳模型在最佳阈值下的潜在临床有用性,评估了净收益方法。
结果:在 6914 例拔管病例中,有 248 例发生 UE。在 UE 组中,男性多于女性,使用身体约束的情况更多,手术更少。与计划拔管组相比,夜班发生 UE 的几率更高。UE 组的 24 小时内再插管率和住院死亡率更高。开发了 UE 预测算法,随机森林(RF)的 AUROC 为 0.787,逻辑回归(LR)为 0.762,人工神经网络(ANN)为 0.763,支持向量机(SVM)为 0.740。
结论:我们成功地使用电子健康记录数据开发并验证了基于机器学习的预测模型,以预测 ICU 患者的 UE。最佳 AUROC 为 0.787,灵敏度为 0.949,使用 RF 算法获得。RF 模型校准良好,Brier 评分和 ICI 分别为 0.129 和 0.048。所提出的预测模型使用广泛可用的变量来限制临床医生的额外工作量。此外,这项评估表明该模型具有潜在的临床应用价值。
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2023-7
Int J Med Inform. 2019-2-12
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2021-12-18
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020-10-2
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2025-5-19
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024-1-8
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020-9
Int J Med Inform. 2018-5-26
N Engl J Med. 2016-9-29