Kamran Fahad, Tjandra Donna, Valley Thomas S, Prescott Hallie C, Shah Nigam H, Liu Vincent X, Horvitz Eric, Wiens Jenna
Division of Computer Science and Engineering, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2025 May 1;32(5):905-913. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaf036.
To quantify differences between (1) stratifying patients by predicted disease onset risk alone and (2) stratifying by predicted disease onset risk and severity of downstream outcomes. We perform a case study of predicting sepsis.
We performed a retrospective analysis using observational data from Michigan Medicine at the University of Michigan (U-M) between 2016 and 2020 and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) between 2008 and 2012. We measured the correlation between the estimated sepsis risk and the estimated effect of sepsis on mortality using Spearman's correlation. We compared patients stratified by sepsis risk with patients stratified by sepsis risk and effect of sepsis on mortality.
The U-M and BIDMC cohorts included 7282 and 5942 ICU visits; 7.9% and 8.1% developed sepsis, respectively. Among visits with sepsis, 21.9% and 26.3% experienced mortality at U-M and BIDMC. The effect of sepsis on mortality was weakly correlated with sepsis risk (U-M: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.33-0.37], BIDMC: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.28-0.34]). High-risk patients identified by both stratification approaches overlapped by 66.8% and 52.8% at U-M and BIDMC, respectively. Accounting for risk of mortality identified an older population (U-M: age = 66.0 [interquartile range-IQR: 55.0-74.0] vs age = 63.0 [IQR: 51.0-72.0], BIDMC: age = 74.0 [IQR: 61.0-83.0] vs age = 68.0 [IQR: 59.0-78.0]).
Predictive models that guide selective interventions ignore the effect of disease on downstream outcomes. Reformulating patient stratification to account for the estimated effect of disease on downstream outcomes identifies a different population compared to stratification on disease risk alone.
Models that predict the risk of disease and ignore the effects of disease on downstream outcomes could be suboptimal for stratification.
量化(1)仅根据预测的疾病发病风险对患者进行分层与(2)根据预测的疾病发病风险和下游结局的严重程度进行分层之间的差异。我们进行了一项预测脓毒症的案例研究。
我们使用密歇根大学(U-M)2016年至2020年以及贝斯以色列女执事医疗中心(BIDMC)2008年至2012年的观察性数据进行了回顾性分析。我们使用斯皮尔曼相关性来测量估计的脓毒症风险与脓毒症对死亡率的估计影响之间的相关性。我们将按脓毒症风险分层的患者与按脓毒症风险和脓毒症对死亡率的影响分层的患者进行了比较。
U-M队列和BIDMC队列分别包括7282次和5942次重症监护病房就诊;分别有7.9%和8.1%的患者发生了脓毒症。在发生脓毒症的就诊中,U-M和BIDMC分别有21.9%和26.3%的患者死亡。脓毒症对死亡率的影响与脓毒症风险呈弱相关(U-M:0.35[95%置信区间:0.33 - 0.37],BIDMC:0.31[95%置信区间:0.28 - 0.34])。两种分层方法确定的高危患者在U-M和BIDMC分别有66.8%和52.8%的重叠。考虑死亡风险后确定的人群年龄更大(U-M:年龄 = 66.0[四分位间距 - IQR:55.0 - 74.0],而年龄 = 63.0[IQR:51.0 - 72.0];BIDMC:年龄 = 74.0[IQR:61.0 - 83.0],而年龄 = 68.0[IQR:59.0 - 78.0])。
指导选择性干预的预测模型忽略了疾病对下游结局的影响。与仅根据疾病风险进行分层相比,重新制定患者分层以考虑疾病对下游结局的估计影响会识别出不同的人群。
预测疾病风险但忽略疾病对下游结局影响的模型在分层方面可能不是最优的。