Daily Automated Prediction of Delirium Risk in Hospitalized Patients: Model Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in hospitalized patients and is correlated with increased morbidity and mortality. Despite this, delirium is underdiagnosed, and many institutions do not have sufficient resources to consistently apply effective screening and prevention. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a machine learning algorithm to identify patients at the highest risk of delirium in the hospital each day in an automated fashion based on data available in the electronic medical record, reducing the barrier to large-scale delirium screening. METHODS: We developed and compared multiple machine learning models on a retrospective dataset of all hospitalized adult patients with recorded Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) screens at a major academic medical center from April 2, 2016, to January 16, 2019, comprising 23,006 patients. The patient's age, gender, and all available laboratory values, vital signs, prior CAM screens, and medication administrations were used as potential predictors. Four machine learning approaches were investigated: logistic regression with L1-regularization, multilayer perceptrons, random forests, and boosted trees. Model development used 80% of the patients; the remaining 20% was reserved for testing the final models. Laboratory values, vital signs, medications, gender, and age were used to predict a positive CAM screen in the next 24 hours. RESULTS: The boosted tree model achieved the greatest predictive power, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.92 (95% CI 0.913-9.22), followed by the random forest (AUROC 0.91, 95% CI 0.909-0.918), multilayer perceptron (AUROC 0.86, 95% CI 0.850-0.861), and logistic regression (AUROC 0.85, 95% CI 0.841-0.852). These AUROCs decreased to 0.78-0.82 and 0.74-0.80 when limited to patients who currently do not or never have had delirium, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A boosted tree machine learning model was able to identify hospitalized patients at elevated risk for delirium in the next 24 hours. This may allow for automated delirium risk screening and more precise targeting of proven and investigational interventions to prevent delirium.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".