Back

Transparent Machine Learning models for Rapid Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department: A multi-center evaluation

van Doorn, W.; Helmich, F.; van Dam, P. M. E. L.; Jacobs, L. H. J.; Stassen, P. M.; Bekers, O.; Meex, S. J. R.

2020-11-26 emergency medicine
10.1101/2020.11.25.20238386 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundRisk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) is important for appropriate triage. Diagnostic laboratory tests are an essential part of the work-up and risk stratification of these patients. Using machine learning, the prognostic power and clinical value of these tests can be amplified greatly. In this study, we applied machine learning to develop an accurate and explainable clinical decision support tool model that predicts the likelihood of 31-day mortality in ED patients (the RISKINDEX). This tool was developed and evaluated in four Dutch hospitals. MethodsMachine learning models included patient characteristics and available laboratory data collected within the first two hours after ED presentation, and were trained using five years of data from consecutive ED patients from the Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (Maastricht), Meander Medical Center (Amersfoort), and Zuyderland (Sittard and Heerlen). A sixth year of data was used to evaluate the models using area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration curves. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) algorithm was used to obtain explainable machine learning models. ResultsThe present study included 266,327 patients with 7.1 million laboratory results available. Models show high diagnostic performance with AUROCs of 0.94,0.98,0.88, and 0.90 for Maastricht, Amersfoort, Sittard and Heerlen, respectively. The SHAP algorithm was utilized to visualize patient characteristics and laboratory data patterns that underlie individual RISKINDEX predictions. ConclusionsOur clinical decision support tool has excellent diagnostic performance in predicting 31-day mortality in ED patients. Follow-up studies will assess whether implementation of these algorithm can improve clinically relevant endpoints.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.