Incorporating Laboratory Values Into a Machine Learning Model Improves In-Hospital Mortality Predictions After Rapid Response Team Call
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Machine learning models have been used to predict mortality among patients requiring rapid response team activation. The goal of our study was to assess the impact of adding laboratory values into the model. Design: A gradient boosted decision tree model was derived and internally validated to predict a primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. The base model was then augmented with laboratory values. Setting: Two tertiary care hospitals within The Ottawa Hospital network. Patients: Inpatients over the age of 18 years who experienced a rapid response team activation between January 1, 2015, and May 31, 2016. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 2,061 rapid response team activations occurred during the study period. The in-hospital mortality rate was 29.4%. Patients who died were older (median age, 72 vs 68 yr; p < 0.001), had a longer length of stay (length of stay) prior to rapid response team activation (4 vs 2 d; p < 0.001), and more often had respiratory distress (31% vs 22%; p < 0.001). Our base model without laboratory values performed with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.71–0.72). When the base model was augmented with laboratory values, the area under the receiver operating curve improved to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.77–0.78). Important mortality predictors in the base model were age, estimated ratio of Pa o 2 to F io 2 (calculated using oxygen saturation and estimated F io 2 ), length of stay prior to rapid response team activation, and systolic blood pressure. Conclusions: Machine learning models can identify rapid response team patients at a high risk of mortality and potentially supplement clinical decision making. Incorporating laboratory values into model development significantly improved predictive performance in this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".