skip to main content
10.1145/2623330.2623742acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Unfolding physiological state: mortality modelling in intensive care units

Authors Info & Claims
Published:24 August 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Accurate knowledge of a patient's disease state and trajectory is critical in a clinical setting. Modern electronic healthcare records contain an increasingly large amount of data, and the ability to automatically identify the factors that influence patient outcomes stand to greatly improve the efficiency and quality of care.

We examined the use of latent variable models (viz. Latent Dirichlet Allocation) to decompose free-text hospital notes into meaningful features, and the predictive power of these features for patient mortality. We considered three prediction regimes: (1) baseline prediction, (2) dynamic (time-varying) outcome prediction, and (3) retrospective outcome prediction. In each, our prediction task differs from the familiar time-varying situation whereby data accumulates; since fewer patients have long ICU stays, as we move forward in time fewer patients are available and the prediction task becomes increasingly difficult.

We found that latent topic-derived features were effective in determining patient mortality under three timelines: in-hospital, 30 day post-discharge, and 1 year post-discharge mortality. Our results demonstrated that the latent topic features important in predicting hospital mortality are very different from those that are important in post-discharge mortality. In general, latent topic features were more predictive than structured features, and a combination of the two performed best.

The time-varying models that combined latent topic features and baseline features had AUCs that reached 0.85, 0.80, and 0.77 for in-hospital, 30 day post-discharge and 1 year post-discharge mortality respectively. Our results agreed with other work suggesting that the first 24 hours of patient information are often the most predictive of hospital mortality. Retrospective models that used a combination of latent topic features and structured features achieved AUCs of 0.96, 0.82, and 0.81 for in-hospital, 30 day, and 1-year mortality prediction.

Our work focuses on the dynamic (time-varying) setting because models from this regime could facilitate an on-going severity stratification system that helps direct care-staff resources and inform treatment strategies.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p75-sidebyside.mp4

mp4

275.8 MB

References

  1. C. Arnold et al. Clinical case-based retrieval using latent topic analysis. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2010, page 26. AMIA, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. Blei, A. Ng, and M. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. JMLR, 3(5):993--1022, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. D. M. Blei and J. D. Lafferty. Dynamic topic models. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, pages 113--120. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM TIST, 2:27:1--27:27, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Ghassemi, T. Naumann, R. Joshi, and A. Rumshisky. Topic models for mortality modeling in intensive care units. In Proceedings of ICML 2012(Machine Learning for Clinical Data Analysis Workshop), Poster Presentation, Edinburgh, UK, June 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Griffiths and M. Steyvers. Finding scientific topics. In PNAS, volume 101, pages 5228--5235, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. C. W. Hug and P. Szolovits. Icu acuity: real-time models versus daily models. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2009, page 260. American Medical Informatics Association, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. E. Johnson, A. A. Kramer, and G. D. Clifford. A new severity of illness scale using a subset of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation data elements shows comparable predictive accuracy*. Critical care medicine, 41(7):1711--1718, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. W. A. Knaus, D. Wagner, E. e. a. Draper, J. Zimmerman, M. Bergner, P. G. Bastos, C. Sirio, D. Murphy, T. Lotring, and A. Damiano. The apache iii prognostic system. risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. CHEST Journal, 100(6):1619--1636, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. J. Le Gall, S. Lemeshow, and F. Saulnier. A new simplified acute physiology score (saps ii) based on a european/north american multicenter study. JAMA, 270(24):2957--2963, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. L.-w. Lehman, M. Saeed, W. Long, J. Lee, and R. Mark. Risk stratification of icu patients using topic models inferred from unstructured progress notes. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2012, page 505. American Medical Informatics Association, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. B. M. Marlin, D. C. Kale, R. G. Khemani, and R. C. Wetzel. Unsupervised pattern discovery in electronic health care data using probabilistic clustering models. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium, pages 389--398. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Saeed et al. Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II: A public-access intensive care unit database. Critical Care Medicine, 39(5):952--960, May 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. G. Salton and C. S. Yang. On the specification of term values in automatic indexing. Journal of Documentation, 29(4):351--372, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. S. Saria, G. McElvain, A. K. Rajani, A. A. Penn, and D. L. Koller. Combining structured and free-text data for automatic coding of patient outcomes. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2010, page 712. American Medical Informatics Association, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Siontis, I. Tzoulaki, and J. Ioannidis. Predicting death: an empirical evaluation of predictive tools for mortality. Archives of internal medicine, pages archinternmed-2011, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J.-L. Vincent, R. Moreno, J. Takala, S. Willatts, A. De Mendonca, H. Bruining, C. Reinhart, P. Suter, and L. Thijs. The sofa (sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive care medicine, 22(7):707--710, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Unfolding physiological state: mortality modelling in intensive care units

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      KDD '14: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
      August 2014
      2028 pages
      ISBN:9781450329569
      DOI:10.1145/2623330

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 August 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      KDD '14 Paper Acceptance Rate151of1,036submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

      Upcoming Conference

      KDD '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader