MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390419498 · doi:10.2196/48497

A Deep Learning Framework for Predicting Patient Decannulation on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Devices: Development and Model Analysis Study

2023· article· en· W4390419498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua Fuller, Alexey Abramov, Dana Mullin, James Beck, Philippe Lemaître, Elham Azizi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Biomedical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIrving Medical Center, Columbia University
KeywordsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationDeep learningMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceIntensive care medicineBiomedical engineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is a therapy for patients with refractory respiratory failure. The decision to decannulate someone from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) often involves weaning trials and clinical intuition. To date, there are limited prognostication metrics to guide clinical decision-making to determine which patients will be successfully weaned and decannulated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assist clinicians with the decision to decannulate a patient from ECMO, using Continuous Evaluation of VV-ECMO Outcomes (CEVVO), a deep learning-based model for predicting success of decannulation in patients supported on VV-ECMO. The running metric may be applied daily to categorize patients into high-risk and low-risk groups. Using these data, providers may consider initiating a weaning trial based on their expertise and CEVVO. METHODS: Data were collected from 118 patients supported with VV-ECMO at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Using a long short-term memory-based network, CEVVO is the first model capable of integrating discrete clinical information with continuous data collected from an ECMO device. A total of 12 sets of 5-fold cross validations were conducted to assess the performance, which was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and average precision (AP). To translate the predicted values into a clinically useful metric, the model results were calibrated and stratified into risk groups, ranging from 0 (high risk) to 3 (low risk). To further investigate the performance edge of CEVVO, 2 synthetic data sets were generated using Gaussian process regression. The first data set preserved the long-term dependency of the patient data set, whereas the second did not. RESULTS: CEVVO demonstrated consistently superior classification performance compared with contemporary models (P<.001 and P=.04 compared with the next highest AUROC and AP). Although the model's patient-by-patient predictive power may be too low to be integrated into a clinical setting (AUROC 95% CI 0.6822-0.7055; AP 95% CI 0.8515-0.8682), the patient risk classification system displayed greater potential. When measured at 72 hours, the high-risk group had a successful decannulation rate of 58% (7/12), whereas the low-risk group had a successful decannulation rate of 92% (11/12; P=.04). When measured at 96 hours, the high- and low-risk groups had a successful decannulation rate of 54% (6/11) and 100% (9/9), respectively (P=.01). We hypothesized that the improved performance of CEVVO was owing to its ability to efficiently capture transient temporal patterns. Indeed, CEVVO exhibited improved performance on synthetic data with inherent temporal dependencies (P<.001) compared with logistic regression and a dense neural network. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to interpret and integrate large data sets is paramount for creating accurate models capable of assisting clinicians in risk stratifying patients supported on VV-ECMO. Our framework may guide future incorporation of CEVVO into more comprehensive intensive care monitoring systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Biomedical EngineeringSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207