A Machine Learning Model to Predict Diuretic Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Volume overload is a common complication encountered in hospitalized patients, and the mainstay of therapy is diuresis. Unfortunately, the diuretic response in some individuals is inadequate despite a typical dose of loop diuretics, a phenomenon called diuretic resistance. An accurate prediction model that predicts diuretic resistance using predosing variables could inform the right diuretic dose for a prospective patient. METHODS: Two large, deidentified, publicly available, and independent intensive care unit (ICU) databases from the United States were used-the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC) and the Philips eICU databases. Loop diuretic resistance was defined as <1400 ml of urine per 40 mg of diuretic dose in 24 hours. Using 24-hour windows throughout admission, commonly accessible variables were obtained and incorporated into the model. Data imputation was performed using a highly accurate machine learning method. Using XGBoost, several models were created using train and test datasets from the eICU database. These were then combined into an ensemble model optimized for increased specificity and then externally validated on the MIMIC database. RESULTS: The final ensemble model was composed of four separate models, each using 21 commonly available variables. The ensemble model outperformed individual models during validation. Higher serum creatinine, lower systolic blood pressure, lower serum chloride, higher age, and female sex were the most important predictors of diuretic resistance (in that order). The specificity of the model on external validation was 92%, yielding a positive likelihood ratio of 3.46 while maintaining overall discrimination (C-statistic 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: A diuretic resistance prediction model was created using machine learning and was externally validated in ICU populations. The model is easy to use, would provide actionable information at the bedside, and would be ready for implementation in existing electronic medical records. This study also provides a framework for the development of future machine learning 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".