Machine Learning Accurately Predicts Need for Critical Care Support in Patients Admitted to Hospital for Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients are admitted for ventilation, vasopressors, and renal replacement therapy (RRT). This study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model that predicts the need for such interventions and compare its accuracy to that of logistic regression (LR). DESIGN: This retrospective observational study trained separate models using random-forest classifier (RFC), support vector machines (SVMs), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and multilayer perceptron (MLP) to predict three endpoints: eventual use of invasive ventilation, vasopressors, and RRT during hospitalization. RFC-based models were overall most accurate in a derivation COVID-19 CAP cohort and were validated in one COVID-19 CAP and two non-COVID-19 CAP cohorts. SETTING: This study is part of the Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Toward InnoVAtive Treatment (CAPTIVATE) Research program. PATIENTS: Two thousand four hundred twenty COVID-19 and 1909 non-COVID-19 CAP patients over 18 years old hospitalized and not needing invasive ventilation, vasopressors, and RRT on the day of admission were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Performance was evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and accuracy. RFCs performed better than XGBoost, SVM, and MLP models. For comparison, we evaluated LR models in the same cohorts. AUROC was very high ranging from 0.74 to 0.95 in predicting ventilation, vasopressors, and RRT use in our derivation and validation cohorts. ML used and variables such as Fio2, Glasgow Coma Scale, and mean arterial pressure to predict ventilator, vasopressor use, creatinine, and potassium to predict RRT use. LR was less accurate than ML, with AUROC ranging 0.66 to 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: A ML algorithm more accurately predicts need of invasive ventilation, vasopressors, or RRT in hospitalized non-COVID-19 CAP and COVID-19 patients than regression models and could augment clinician judgment for triage and care of hospitalized CAP patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".