4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prediction of inpatient pressure ulcers based on routine healthcare data using machine learning methodology

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite the relevance of pressure ulcers (PU) in inpatient care, the predictive power and role of care-related risk factors (e.g. anesthesia) remain unclear. We investigated the predictability of PU incidence and its association with multiple care variables. We included all somatic cases between 2014 and 2018 with length of stay ≥ 2d in a German university hospital. For regression analyses and prediction we used Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) as nonparametric modeling approach. To assess predictive accuracy, we compared BART, random forest, logistic regression (LR) and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) using area under the curve (AUC), confusion matrices and multiple indicators of predictive performance (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, F1, positive/ negative predictive value) in the full dataset and subgroups. Analysing 149,006 cases revealed high predictive variable importance and associations between incident PU and ventilation, age, anesthesia (≥ 1 h) and number of care-involved wards. Despite high AUCs (range 0.89–0.90), many false negative predictions led to low sensitivity (range 0.04–0.10). Ventilation, age, anesthesia and number of care-involved wards were associated with incident PU. Using anesthesia as a proxy for immobility, an hourly repositioning is indicated. The low sensitivity indicates major challenges for correctly predicting PU based on routine data.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            To Explain or to Predict?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Basic principles of ROC analysis

              The limitations of diagnostic "accuracy" as a measure of decision performance require introduction of the concepts of the "sensitivity" and "specificity" of a diagnostic test. These measures and the related indices, "true positive fraction" and "false positive fraction," are more meaningful than "accuracy," yet do not provide a unique description of diagnostic performance because they depend on the arbitrary selection of a decision threshold. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is shown to be a simple yet complete empirical description of this decision threshold effect, indicating all possible combinations of the relative frequencies of the various kinds of correct and incorrect decisions. Practical experimental techniques for measuring ROC curves are described, and the issues of case selection and curve-fitting are discussed briefly. Possible generalizations of conventional ROC analysis to account for decision performance in complex diagnostic tasks are indicated. ROC analysis is shown to be related in a direct and natural way to cost/benefit analysis of diagnostic decision making. The concepts of "average diagnostic cost" and "average net benefit" are developed and used to identify the optimal compromise among various kinds of diagnostic error. Finally, the way in which ROC analysis can be employed to optimize diagnostic strategies is suggested.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Felix.walther@ukdd.de
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                23 March 2022
                23 March 2022
                2022
                : 12
                : 5044
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4488.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2111 7257, Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, , Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, ; TU Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany
                [2 ]GRID grid.412282.f, ISNI 0000 0001 1091 2917, Quality and Medical Risk Management, , University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, ; Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany
                Article
                9050
                10.1038/s41598-022-09050-x
                8943147
                35322109
                6048616d-68bd-4147-906e-b9d30b7986c7
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 November 2021
                : 9 March 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Technische Universität Dresden (1019)
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Uncategorized
                disease prevention,health services,health care,risk factors
                Uncategorized
                disease prevention, health services, health care, risk factors

                Comments

                Comment on this article