Predicting Abnormalities in Laboratory Values of Patients in the Intensive Care Unit Using Different Deep Learning Models: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the volume of medical knowledge and health data has increased rapidly. For example, the increased availability of electronic health records (EHRs) provides accurate, up-to-date, and complete information about patients at the point of care and enables medical staff to have quick access to patient records for more coordinated and efficient care. With this increase in knowledge, the complexity of accurate, evidence-based medicine tends to grow all the time. Health care workers must deal with an increasing amount of data and documentation. Meanwhile, relevant patient data are frequently overshadowed by a layer of less relevant data, causing medical staff to often miss important values or abnormal trends and their importance to the progression of the patient's case. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this work is to analyze the current laboratory results for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and classify which of these lab values could be abnormal the next time the test is done. Detecting near-future abnormalities can be useful to support clinicians in their decision-making process in the ICU by drawing their attention to the important values and focus on future lab testing, saving them both time and money. Additionally, it will give doctors more time to spend with patients, rather than skimming through a long list of lab values. METHODS: We used Structured Query Language to extract 25 lab values for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU from the MIMIC-III and eICU data sets. Additionally, we applied time-windowed sampling and holding, and a support vector machine to fill in the missing values in the sparse time series, as well as the Tukey range to detect and delete anomalies. Then, we used the data to train 4 deep learning models for time series classification, as well as a gradient boosting-based algorithm and compared their performance on both data sets. RESULTS: The models tested in this work (deep neural networks and gradient boosting), combined with the preprocessing pipeline, achieved an accuracy of at least 80% on the multilabel classification task. Moreover, the model based on the multiple convolutional neural network outperformed the other algorithms on both data sets, with the accuracy exceeding 89%. CONCLUSIONS: In this work, we show that using machine learning and deep neural networks to predict near-future abnormalities in lab values can achieve satisfactory results. Our system was trained, validated, and tested on 2 well-known data sets to ensure that our system bridged the reality gap as much as possible. Finally, the model can be used in combination with our preprocessing pipeline on real-life EHRs to improve patients' diagnosis and treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".