Developing a novel prediction model in opioid overdose using machine learning; a pilot analytical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: The opioid epidemic has extended to many countries. Data regarding the accuracy of conventional prediction models including the Simplified Acute Physiologic Score (SAPS) II and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II are scarce in opioid overdose cases. We evaluate the efficacy of adding quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) data to clinical and paraclinical data in the prediction of opioid overdose mortality using machine learning. Methods: In a prospective study, we collected clinical/paraclinical, and qEEG data of 32 opioid-poisoned patients. After preprocessing and Fast Fourier Transform analysis, absolute power was computed. Also, SAPS II was calculated. Eventually, data analysis was performed using SAPS II as a benchmark at three levels to predict the patient's course in comparison with SAPS II. First, the qEEG data set was used alone, secondly, the combination of the clinical/paraclinical, SAPS II, qEEG datasets, and the SAPS II-based model was included in the pool of classifier models. Results: Seven out of 32 (22%) died. SAPS II (cut-off of 50.5) had a sensitivity/specificity/positive/negative predictive values of 85.7%, 84.0%, 60.0%, and 95.5% in predicting mortality, respectively. Adding majority voting on random forest with qEEG and clinical data, improved the model sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values to 71.4%, 96%, 83.3%, and 92.3% (not significant). The model fusion level has 40% less prediction error. Conclusion: Considering the higher specificity and negative predictive value in our proposed model, it could predict survival much better than mortality. The model would constitute an indicator for better care of opioid poisoned patients in low resources settings, where intensive care unit beds are limited.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".