The use of classification and regression trees to predict the likelihood of seasonal influenza

被引:18
作者
Afonso, Anna M. [1 ]
Ebell, Mark H. [1 ]
Gonzales, Ralph [2 ]
Stein, John [3 ]
Genton, Blaise [4 ]
Senn, Nicolas [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Georgia, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Internal Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Emergency Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Univ Lausanne Hosp, Dept Ambulatory Care & Community Med, Infect Dis Serv, Lausanne, Switzerland
[5] Univ Lausanne Hosp, Dept Ambulatory Care & Community Med, Lausanne, Switzerland
关键词
Clinical decision rules; common illnesses; infectious disease; influenza; primary care; public health; respiratory infections; CLINICAL DECISION RULE; VIRUS-INFECTION; DIAGNOSIS; SYMPTOMS;
D O I
10.1093/fampra/cms020
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Individual signs and symptoms are of limited value for the diagnosis of influenza. To develop a decision tree for the diagnosis of influenza based on a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Data from two previous similar cohort studies were assembled into a single dataset. The data were randomly divided into a development set (70%) and a validation set (30%). We used CART analysis to develop three models that maximize the number of patients who do not require diagnostic testing prior to treatment decisions. The validation set was used to evaluate overfitting of the model to the training set. Model 1 has seven terminal nodes based on temperature, the onset of symptoms and the presence of chills, cough and myalgia. Model 2 was a simpler tree with only two splits based on temperature and the presence of chills. Model 3 was developed with temperature as a dichotomous variable (>= 38 degrees C) and had only two splits based on the presence of fever and myalgia. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCC) for the development and validation sets, respectively, were 0.82 and 0.80 for Model 1, 0.75 and 0.76 for Model 2 and 0.76 and 0.77 for Model 3. Model 2 classified 67% of patients in the validation group into a high- or low-risk group compared with only 38% for Model 1 and 54% for Model 3. A simple decision tree (Model 2) classified two-thirds of patients as low or high risk and had an AUROCC of 0.76. After further validation in an independent population, this CART model could support clinical decision making regarding influenza, with low-risk patients requiring no further evaluation for influenza and high-risk patients being candidates for empiric symptomatic or drug therapy.
引用
收藏
页码:671 / 677
页数:7
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1984, OLSHEN STONE CLASSIF, DOI 10.2307/2530946
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2007, RECURSING PARTITIONI, P657
[3]   Predicting influenza infections during epidemics with use of a clinical case definition [J].
Boivin, G ;
Hardy, I ;
Tellier, G ;
Maziade, J .
CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2000, 31 (05) :1166-1169
[4]   Evaluation of clinical case definitions of influenza: Detailed investigation of patients during the 1995-1996 epidemic in France [J].
Carrat, F ;
Tachet, A ;
Rouzioux, C ;
Housset, B ;
Valleron, AJ .
CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 1999, 28 (02) :283-290
[5]  
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, SEAS INFL FLU QUEST
[6]  
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US SURV DAT 1997 199
[7]   Systematic reviews in health care - Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening [J].
Deeks, JJ .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7305) :157-162
[8]   Development and Validation of a Clinical Decision Rule for the Diagnosis of Influenza [J].
Ebell, Mark H. ;
Afonso, Anna M. ;
Gonzales, Ralph ;
Stein, John ;
Genton, Blaise ;
Senn, Nicolas .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2012, 25 (01) :55-62
[9]   A Systematic Review of Clinical Decision Rules for the Diagnosis of Influenza [J].
Ebell, Mark H. ;
Afonso, Anna .
ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2011, 9 (01) :69-77
[10]   A systematic review of the history and physical examination to diagnose influenza [J].
Ebell, MH ;
White, LL ;
Casault, T .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY PRACTICE, 2004, 17 (01) :1-5