MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383755093 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3100844/v1

Using domain adaptation and inductive transfer learning to improve patient outcome prediction in the intensive care unit

2023· preprint· en· W4383755093 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maruthi Kumar Mutnuri, Henry T. Stelfox, Nils D. Forkert, Joon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
KeywordsTransfer of learningComputer scienceIntensive care unitTask (project management)Logistic regressionArtificial intelligenceLasso (programming language)Baseline (sea)Machine learningDeep learningIntensive careDomain (mathematical analysis)Adaptation (eye)Artificial neural networkDomain adaptationMulti-task learningMedicineIntensive care medicinePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predicting patient outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) can allow for more effective and efficient patient care. Deep learning models are effective in learning from data to accurately predict patient outcomes; however, they require huge amounts of data to train and massive computational power. Transfer learning (TL) helps in scenarios when data and computational resources are scarce. TL is commonly used in medical image analysis and natural language processing but is comparatively rare in electronic health record (EHR) analysis. In medical image analysis and natural language processing, domain adaptation (DA) is the most commonly used TL method in the literature while inductive transfer learning (ITL) is quite rare. This study explores DA as well as rarely researched ITL for predicting ICU outcomes using EHR data. To investigate the effectiveness of these TL models, we compared them with baseline models of fully connected neural networks (FCNN), logistic regression, and lasso regression in the prediction of 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), hospital length of stay (H_LOS), and ICU length of stay (ICU_LOS). TL models transfer the knowledge gained while training for the source prediction task on the source domain to improve the prediction performance of the target prediction task on the target domain. Whereas baseline models were trained directly on the target domain for the target prediction task. Two cohorts were used in this study for the development and evaluation. The first was eCritical, a multicenter ICU data linked with administrative data with 55,689 unique admission records from 48,672 unique patients admitted to 15 medical-surgical ICUs in Alberta, Canada, between March 2013 and December 2019. The second was MIMIC-III, a single-center, publicly available ICU dataset from Boston, USA, acquired between 2001 and 2012. Random subsets of training data, ranging from 1% to 75%, as well as the full dataset were used to compare the performances of DA and ITL with FCNN, logistic and lasso regression. Overall, the ITL outperformed baseline FCNN, logistic and lasso regressions in 55 out of the 56 comparisons (7 data subsets, 4 outcomes, and 2 baseline models), whereas DA models outperformed the baseline models in 45 out of 56 cases. ITL performance was comparatively better than DA, considering the number of times it outperformed baseline models and the margin with which it outperformed baseline models. In 11 out of 16 cases (8 out of 8 for ITL and 3 out of 8 for DA), TL models outperformed baseline models when trained using the 1% data subset. This is significant because TL models are useful in data-scarce scenarios. The publicly available pre-trained models from this study can be used to predict ICU patient outcomes and serve as building blocks in further research for the development and validation of models in other cohorts and outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.005
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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207