MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206714484 · doi:10.2196/31760

Predicting High Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in an Intensive Care Unit Using a Recurrent Neural Network With Transfer Learning and Input Data Perseveration: Retrospective Analysis

2022· article· en· W4206714484 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
George A. Pappy, Melissa Aczon, Randall C. Wetzel, David Ledbetter

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNasal cannulaMedicineIntubationReceiver operating characteristicIntensive care unitRetrospective cohort studyContinuous positive airway pressurePositive airway pressureIntensive careMedical recordIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryCannulaInternal medicineObstructive sleep apnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) provides noninvasive respiratory support for children who are critically ill who may tolerate it more readily than other noninvasive ventilation (NIV) techniques such as bilevel positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure. Moreover, HFNC may preclude the need for mechanical ventilation (intubation). Nevertheless, NIV or intubation may ultimately be necessary for certain patients. Timely prediction of HFNC failure can provide an indication for increasing respiratory support. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop and compare machine learning (ML) models to predict HFNC failure. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using the Virtual Pediatric Intensive Care Unit database of electronic medical records of patients admitted to a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit between January 2010 and February 2020. Patients aged <19 years, without apnea, and receiving HFNC treatment were included. A long short-term memory (LSTM) model using 517 variables (vital signs, laboratory data, and other clinical parameters) was trained to generate a continuous prediction of HFNC failure, defined as escalation to NIV or intubation within 24 hours of HFNC initiation. For comparison, 7 other models were trained: a logistic regression (LR) using the same 517 variables, another LR using only 14 variables, and 5 additional LSTM-based models using the same 517 variables as the first LSTM model and incorporating additional ML techniques (transfer learning, input perseveration, and ensembling). Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve at various times following HFNC initiation. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of predictions at 2 hours after HFNC initiation were also evaluated. These metrics were also computed for a cohort with primarily respiratory diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 834 HFNC trials (455 [54.6%] training, 173 [20.7%] validation, and 206 [24.7%] test) met the inclusion criteria, of which 175 (21%; training: 103/455, 22.6%; validation: 30/173, 17.3%; test: 42/206, 20.4%) escalated to NIV or intubation. The LSTM models trained with transfer learning generally performed better than the LR models, with the best LSTM model achieving an AUROC of 0.78 versus 0.66 for the 14-variable LR and 0.71 for the 517-variable LR 2 hours after initiation. All models except for the 14-variable LR achieved higher AUROCs in the respiratory cohort than in the general intensive care unit population. CONCLUSIONS: ML models trained using electronic medical record data were able to identify children at risk of HFNC failure within 24 hours of initiation. LSTM models that incorporated transfer learning, input data perseveration, and ensembling showed improved performance compared with the LR and standard LSTM models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207