Event Prediction Model Considering Time and Input Error Using Electronic Medical Records in the Intensive Care Unit: Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the era of artificial intelligence, event prediction models are abundant. However, considering the limitation of the electronic medical record-based model, including the temporally skewed prediction and the record itself, these models could be delayed or could yield errors. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to develop multiple event prediction models in intensive care units to overcome their temporal skewness and evaluate their robustness against delayed and erroneous input. METHODS: A total of 21,738 patients were included in the development cohort. Three events-death, sepsis, and acute kidney injury-were predicted. To overcome the temporal skewness, we developed three models for each event, which predicted the events in advance of three prespecified timepoints. Additionally, to evaluate the robustness against input error and delays, we added simulated errors and delayed input and calculated changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values. RESULTS: Most of the AUROC and area under the precision-recall curve values of each model were higher than those of the conventional scores, as well as other machine learning models previously used. In the error input experiment, except for our proposed model, an increase in the noise added to the model lowered the resulting AUROC value. However, the delayed input did not show the performance decreased in this experiment. CONCLUSIONS: For a prediction model that was applicable in the real world, we considered not only performance but also temporal skewness, delayed input, and input error.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".