Back

Algorithmic Identification of Potentially High Risk Abdominal Presentations (PHRAPs) to the Emergency Department: A Clinically-Oriented Machine Learning Approach

Kuzma, R.; Saraswathula, V.; Moon, K.; Kelz, R. R.; Friedman, A. B.

2022-02-09 emergency medicine
10.1101/2022.02.08.22270691 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundOlder adults presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with abdominal pain have been shown to be at high risk of subsequent morbidity and mortality. Yet, such presentations are poorly studied in national databases. Claims databases do not record the patients symptoms at the time of presentation to the ED, but rather the diagnosis after testing and evaluation, limiting study of care and outcomes for these high risk abdominal presentations. ObjectivesWe sought to develop an algorithm to define a patient population with potentially high risk abdominal presentations (PHRAPs) using only variables commonly available in claims data. Research DesignTrain a machine learning model to predict abdominal pain chief complaints using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), a nationally-representative database of abstracted ED medical records. SubjectsAll patients contained in NHAMCS data from 2013-2018. 2013-2017 were used for predictive modeling and 2018 was used as a hold-out test set. MeasuresPositive predictive value and sensitivity of the predictive algorithm against a hold-out test set of NHAMCS patients the algorithm was blinded to during training. Predictions were assessed for agreement with either a chief complaint of abdominal pain (contained in "Reason for Visit 1"), or an expanded definition intended to capture visits which were for abdominal concerns. These included secondary or tertiary complaints of abdominal pain or other abdominal conditions, other abdominal-related chief complaint (e.g. nausea or diarrhea, but not pain), discharge diagnosis of an abdominal condition, or reception of an abdominal CT or ultrasound. ResultsAfter validation on a hold-out data set, a gradient boosting machine (GBM) was the best best-performing machine learning model, but a logistic regression model had similar performance and may be more explainable and useful to future researchers. The GBM predicted a chief complaint of abdominal pain with a positive predictive value of 0.60 (95% CI of 0.56, 0.64) and a sensitivity of 0.29 (95% CI of (0.27, 0.32). Nearly all false positives still exhibited signs of "abdominal concerns" for patients: using the expanded definition of "abdominal concern" the model had a PPV of >0.99 (95% CI of 0.99, 1.00) and sensitivity of 0.12 (95% CI of 0.11, 0.13). ConclusionThe algorithm we report defines a patient population with abdominal concerns for further study of treatment and outcomes to inform the development of clinical pathways.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.6%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.2%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.9%
6
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
8
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.3%
9
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
10
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
11
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
12
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
13
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
14
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
15
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
16
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
18
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
19
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
American Journal of Gastroenterology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
25
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.5%