4.5 Article

Prediction of good neurological recovery after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A machine learning analysis

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 127-135

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.07.020

关键词

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; Outcome; Machine learning analysis

资金

  1. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study aimed to train, validate and compare predictive models that use machine learning analysis for good neurological recovery in OHCA patients. Methods: Adult OHCA patients who had a presumed cardiac etiology and a sustained return of spontaneous circulation between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed; 80 degrees. of the individuals were analyzed for training and 20% were analyzed for validation. We developed using six machine learning algorithms: logistic regression (LR), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), support vector machine, random forest, elastic net (EN), and neural network. Variables that could be obtained within 24 hours of the emergency department visit were used. The area under the receiver operation curve (AU ROC) was calculated to assess the discrimination. Calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Reclassification was assessed by using the continuous net reclassification index (NRI). Results: A total of 19,860 OHCA patients were included in the analysis. Of the 15,888 patients in the training group, 2228 (14.05) had a good neurological recovery; of the 3972 patients in the validation group, 577 (14.5%) had a good neurological recovery. The LR, XGB, and EN models showed the highest discrimination powers (AUROC (95% CI)) of 0.949 (0.941-0.957) for all), and all three models were well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: p>0.05). The XGB model reclassified patients according to their true risk better than the LR model (NRI: 0.110), but the EN model reclassified patients worse than the LR model (NRI: -1.239). Conclusion: The best performing machine learning algorithm was the XGB and LR algorithm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据