Improved performance of machine learning models in predicting length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient mortality after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific variables

被引:5
作者
Zalikha, Abdul K. [1 ]
Court, Tannor [1 ]
Nham, Fong [1 ]
El-Othmani, Mouhanad M. [2 ]
Shah, Roshan P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Detroit Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed Surg & Sports Med, Detroit, MI 48201 USA
[2] Columbia Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed Surg, New York, NY 10032 USA
关键词
Machine learning; Total knee arthroplasty; Artificial intelligence; Postoperative outcomes; Length of stay; TOTAL JOINT ARTHROPLASTY;
D O I
10.1186/s42836-023-00187-2
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundThis study aimed to compare the performance of ten predictive models using different machine learning (ML) algorithms and compare the performance of models developed using patient-specific vs. situational variables in predicting select outcomes after primary TKA.MethodsData from 2016 to 2017 from the National Inpatient Sample were used to identify 305,577 discharges undergoing primary TKA, which were included in the training, testing, and validation of 10 ML models. 15 predictive variables consisting of 8 patient-specific and 7 situational variables were utilized to predict length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and mortality. Using the best performing algorithms, models trained using either 8 patient-specific and 7 situational variables were then developed and compared.ResultsFor models developed using all 15 variables, Linear Support Vector Machine (LSVM) was the most responsive model for predicting LOS. LSVM and XGT Boost Tree were equivalently most responsive for predicting discharge disposition. LSVM and XGT Boost Linear were equivalently most responsive for predicting mortality. Decision List, CHAID, and LSVM were the most reliable models for predicting LOS and discharge disposition, while XGT Boost Tree, Decision List, LSVM, and CHAID were most reliable for mortality. Models developed using the 8 patient-specific variables outperformed those developed using the 7 situational variables, with few exceptions.ConclusionThis study revealed that performance of different models varied, ranging from poor to excellent, and demonstrated that models developed using patient-specific variables were typically better predictive of quality metrics after TKA than those developed employing situational variables.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Machine Learning-Based Hospital Discharge Prediction for Patients With Cardiovascular Diseases: Development and Usability Study [J].
Ahn, Imjin ;
Gwon, Hansle ;
Kang, Heejun ;
Kim, Yunha ;
Seo, Hyeram ;
Choi, Heejung ;
Cho, Ha Na ;
Kim, Minkyoung ;
Jun, Tae Joon ;
Kim, Young-Hak .
JMIR MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2021, 9 (11)
[2]   Comparison of machine learning techniques to predict unplanned readmission following total shoulder arthroplasty [J].
Arvind, Varun ;
London, Daniel A. ;
Cirino, Carl ;
Keswani, Aakash ;
Cagle, Paul J. .
JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2021, 30 (02) :E50-E59
[3]   Feature selection and transformation by machine learning reduce variable numbers and improve prediction for heart failure readmission or death [J].
Awan, Saqib E. ;
Bennamoun, Mohammed ;
Sohel, Ferdous ;
Sanfilippo, Frank M. ;
Chow, Benjamin J. ;
Dwivedi, Girish .
PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (06)
[4]   Predictive Models for Clinical Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Analysis [J].
Batailler, Cecile ;
Lording, Timothy ;
De Massari, Daniele ;
Witvoet-Braam, Sietske ;
Bini, Stefano ;
Lustig, Sebastien .
ARTHROPLASTY TODAY, 2021, 9 :1-15
[5]   Evaluation of a Preoperative Optimization Protocol for Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Patients [J].
Bernstein, David N. ;
Liu, Tiffany C. ;
Winegar, Angela L. ;
Jackson, Lauren W. ;
Darnutzer, Jessica L. ;
Wulf, Kelsey M. ;
Schlitt, John T. ;
Sardan, Mauricio A. ;
Bozic, Kevin J. .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2018, 33 (12) :3642-3648
[6]   Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and Cognitive Computing: What Do These Terms Mean and How Will They Impact Health Care? [J].
Bini, Stefano A. .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2018, 33 (08) :2358-2361
[7]   Is Administratively Coded Comorbidity and Complication Data in Total Joint Arthroplasty Valid? [J].
Bozic, Kevin J. ;
Bashyal, Ravi K. ;
Anthony, Shawn G. ;
Chiu, Vanessa ;
Shulman, Brandon ;
Rubash, Harry E. .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2013, 471 (01) :201-205
[8]   POINTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statistics versus machine learning [J].
Bzdok, Danilo ;
Altman, Naomi ;
Krzywinski, Martin .
NATURE METHODS, 2018, 15 (04) :232-233
[9]   SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique [J].
Chawla, Nitesh V. ;
Bowyer, Kevin W. ;
Hall, Lawrence O. ;
Kegelmeyer, W. Philip .
2002, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (16)
[10]   A Novel, Potentially Universal Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict Complications in Total Knee Arthroplasty [J].
Devana, Sai K. ;
Shah, Akash A. ;
Lee, Changhee ;
Roney, Andrew R. ;
van der Schaar, Mihaela ;
Soohoo, Nelson F. .
ARTHROPLASTY TODAY, 2021, 10 :135-143