Machine learning as a tool to identify inpatients who are not at risk of adverse drug events in a large dataset of a tertiary care hospital in the USA

被引:2
作者
Langenberger, Benedikt [1 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Berlin, Dept Hlth Care Management, Berlin, Germany
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
adverse drug events; decision support; machine learning; predictive modelling; OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVE; VARIABLE SELECTION; PREDICTION MODELS; AREA; EMERGENCY; CLASSIFICATION; REGULARIZATION; SURVEILLANCE; SENSITIVITY; IMPUTATION;
D O I
10.1111/bcp.15846
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
AimsAdverse drug events (ADEs) are a major threat to inpatients in the United States of America (USA). It is unknown how well machine learning (ML) is able to predict whether or not a patient will suffer from an ADE during hospital stay based on data available at hospital admission for emergency department patients of all ages (binary classification task). It is further unknown whether ML is able to outperform logistic regression (LR) in doing so, and which variables are the most important predictors. MethodsIn this study, 5 ML models- namely a random forest, gradient boosting machine (GBM), ridge regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, and elastic net regression-as well as a LR were trained and tested for the prediction of inpatient ADEs identified using ICD-10-CM codes based on comprehensive previous work in a diverse population. In total, 210 181 observations from patients who were admitted to a large tertiary care hospital after emergency department stay between 2011 and 2019 were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and AUC-precision-recall (AUC-PR) were used as primary performance indicators. ResultsTree-based models performed best with respect to AUC and AUC-PR. The gradient boosting machine (GBM) reached an AUC of 0.747 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.735 to 0.759) and an AUC-PR of 0.134 (95% CI: 0.131 to 0.137) on unforeseen test data, while the random forest reached an AUC of 0.743 (95% CI: 0.731 to 0.755) and an AUC-PR of 0.139 (95% CI: 0.135 to 0.142), respectively. ML statistically significantly outperformed LR both on AUC and AUC-PR. Nonetheless, overall, models did not differ much with respect to their performance. Most important predictors were admission type, temperature and chief complaint for the best performing model (GBM). ConclusionsThe study demonstrated a first application of ML to predict inpatient ADEs based on ICD-10-CM codes, and a comparison with LR. Future research should address concerns arising from low precision and related problems.
引用
收藏
页码:3523 / 3538
页数:16
相关论文
共 104 条
  • [31] A discussion of calibration techniques for evaluating binary and categorical predictive models
    Fenlon, Caroline
    O'Grady, Luke
    Doherty, Michael L.
    Dunnion, John
    [J]. PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2018, 149 : 107 - 114
  • [32] Can Machine Learning Algorithms Predict Which Patients Will Achieve Minimally Clinically Important Differences From Total Joint Arthroplasty?
    Fontana, Mark Alan
    Lyman, Stephen
    Sarker, Gourab K.
    Padgett, Douglas E.
    MacLean, Catherine H.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2019, 477 (06) : 1267 - 1279
  • [33] Pharmacist surveillance of adverse drug events
    Forster, AJ
    Halil, RB
    Tierney, MG
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY, 2004, 61 (14) : 1466 - 1472
  • [34] Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
    Friedman, JH
    [J]. ANNALS OF STATISTICS, 2001, 29 (05) : 1189 - 1232
  • [35] Selective serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for postoperative nausea and vomiting -: Are they all the same?
    Gan, TJ
    [J]. CNS DRUGS, 2005, 19 (03) : 225 - 238
  • [36] Adverse drug events in ambulatory care
    Gandhi, TK
    Weingart, SN
    Borus, J
    Seger, AC
    Peterson, J
    Burdick, E
    Seger, DL
    Shu, K
    Federico, F
    Leape, LL
    Bates, DW
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2003, 348 (16) : 1556 - 1564
  • [37] PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet - Components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals
    Goldberger, AL
    Amaral, LAN
    Glass, L
    Hausdorff, JM
    Ivanov, PC
    Mark, RG
    Mietus, JE
    Moody, GB
    Peng, CK
    Stanley, HE
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2000, 101 (23) : E215 - E220
  • [38] H2O.ai I, 2021, VARIABLE IMPORTANCE
  • [39] Adverse drug events in emergency department patients
    Hafner, JW
    Belknap, SM
    Squillante, MD
    Bucheit, KA
    [J]. ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2002, 39 (03) : 258 - 267
  • [40] Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: A discussion and proposal for an alternative approach
    Halligan, Steve
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Mallett, Susan
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2015, 25 (04) : 932 - 939