Machine learning-based prediction of acute severity in infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis: a multicenter prospective study

20Citations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We aimed to develop machine learning models to accurately predict bronchiolitis severity, and to compare their predictive performance with a conventional scoring (reference) model. In a 17-center prospective study of infants (aged < 1 year) hospitalized for bronchiolitis, by using routinely-available pre-hospitalization data as predictors, we developed four machine learning models: Lasso regression, elastic net regression, random forest, and gradient boosted decision tree. We compared their predictive performance—e.g., area-under-the-curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and net benefit (decision curves)—using a cross-validation method, with that of the reference model. The outcomes were positive pressure ventilation use and intensive treatment (admission to intensive care unit and/or positive pressure ventilation use). Of 1,016 infants, 5.4% underwent positive pressure ventilation and 16.0% had intensive treatment. For the positive pressure ventilation outcome, machine learning models outperformed reference model (e.g., AUC 0.88 [95% CI 0.84–0.93] in gradient boosted decision tree vs 0.62 [95% CI 0.53–0.70] in reference model), with higher sensitivity (0.89 [95% CI 0.80–0.96] vs. 0.62 [95% CI 0.49–0.75]) and specificity (0.77 [95% CI 0.75–0.80] vs. 0.57 [95% CI 0.54–0.60]). The machine learning models also achieved a greater net benefit over ranges of clinical thresholds. Machine learning models consistently demonstrated a superior ability to predict acute severity and achieved greater net benefit.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Raita, Y., Camargo, C. A., Macias, C. G., Mansbach, J. M., Piedra, P. A., Porter, S. C., … Hasegawa, K. (2020). Machine learning-based prediction of acute severity in infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis: a multicenter prospective study. Scientific Reports, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67629-8

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