Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A singlecenter retrospective cohort study

29Citations
Citations of this article
64Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Although machine learning-based prediction models for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) have been widely investigated, it is unknown whether a model based on vital signs alone (Vitals-Only model) can perform similarly to a model that considers both vital signs and laboratory results (Vitals+Labs model). Methods All adult patients hospitalized in a tertiary care hospital in Japan between October 2011 and October 2018 were included in this study. Random forest models with/without laboratory results (Vitals+Labs model and Vitals-Only model, respectively) were trained and tested using chronologically divided datasets. Both models use patient demographics and eighthourly vital signs collected within the previous 48 hours. The primary and secondary outcomes were the occurrence of IHCA in the next 8 and 24 hours, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used as a comparative measure. Sensitivity analyses were performed under multiple statistical assumptions. Results Of 141,111 admitted patients (training data: 83,064, test data: 58,047), 338 had an IHCA (training data: 217, test data: 121) during the study period. The Vitals-Only model and Vitals +Labs model performed comparably when predicting IHCA within the next 8 hours (Vitals- Only model vs Vitals+Labs model, AUC = 0.862 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.855-0.868] vs 0.872 [95% CI: 0.867-0.878]) and 24 hours (Vitals-Only model vs Vitals+Labs model, AUC = 0.830 [95% CI: 0.825-0.835] vs 0.837 [95% CI: 0.830-0.844]). Both models performed similarly well on medical, surgical, and ward patient data, but did not perform well for intensive care unit patients. Conclusions In this single-center study, the machine learning model predicted IHCAs with good discrimination. The addition of laboratory values to vital signs did not significantly improve its overall performance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ueno, R., Xu, L., Uegami, W., Matsui, H., Okui, J., Hayashi, H., … Jones, D. (2020). Value of laboratory results in addition to vital signs in a machine learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest: A singlecenter retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE, 15(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235835

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free