MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386861905 · doi:10.2196/preprints.52730

Using Domain Adaptation and Inductive Transfer Learning to Improve Patient Outcome Prediction in the Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Observational Study (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4386861905 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maruthi Kumar Mutnuri, Henry T. Stelfox, Nils D. Forkert, Joon Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfer of learningContext (archaeology)Intensive care unitIntensive careLogistic regressionArtificial intelligenceMedicineMachine learningObservational studyOutcome (game theory)Medical recordDeep learningComputer scienceLasso (programming language)Emergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Accurate patient outcome prediction in the intensive care unit (ICU) can lead to more effective and efficient patient care. Deep learning models are capable of learning from data to accurately predict patient outcomes, but they typically require large amounts of data and computational resources. Transfer learning (TL) can help in scenarios when data and computational resources are scarce by leveraging pre-trained models. While TL has been widely used in medical imaging and natural language processing, it has been rare in electronic health record (EHR) analysis. Furthermore, domain adaptation (DA) has been the most commonly used TL method in general, whereas inductive transfer learning (ITL) has been rare. To the best of our knowledge, DA and ITL have never been studied in depth in the context of EHR-based ICU patient outcome prediction. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study investigated DA as well as rarely researched ITL in EHR-based ICU patient outcome prediction under simulated, varying levels of data scarcity. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Two patient cohorts were used in this study: 1) eCritical, a multicenter ICU data from 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; and 2) MIMIC-III, a single-center, publicly available ICU dataset from Boston, USA, acquired between 2001 and 2012. We compared DA and ITL models with baseline models (without TL) of fully connected neural networks, logistic regression, and lasso regression in the prediction of 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), ICU length of stay (ICU_LOS), and hospital length of stay (H_LOS). 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 the baseline models at various levels of data scarcity. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Overall, the ITL models outperformed the baseline models in 55 out of 56 comparisons. The DA models outperformed the baseline models in 45 out of 56 comparisons. ITL resulted in better performance than DA in terms of the number of times and the margin with which it outperformed the 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. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> TL-based ICU patient outcome prediction models are useful in data-scarce scenarios. The results of the present study can be used to estimate ICU outcome prediction performance at different levels of data scarcity, with and without TL. The publicly available pre-trained models from this study can serve as building blocks in further research for the development and validation of models in other ICU cohorts and outcomes. </sec>

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207