MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416524858 · doi:10.2196/78941

Prediction of Respiratory Decompensation in Patients Receiving Home Mechanical Ventilation: Machine Learning Model Development and Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4416524858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nerea Berbel Casado, Francesc López Seguí, Natalia Muñoz Moruno, Antoni Rosell, Aída Selfa Muñoz, Ignasi García-Olivé, Marina Galdeano Lozano

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataDecompensationRobustness (evolution)Support vector machinePredictive modellingRandom forest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic respiratory diseases often require long-term ventilatory support, leading to a growing number of patients treated with home mechanical ventilation (HMV). Despite advancements in telemonitoring with real-time tracking of noninvasive mechanical ventilation enabled by integrated software in HMV devices, early signs of respiratory decompensation may go unnoticed, leading to emergency visits and hospitalizations, which burden both patients and health care systems. Objective: This study aims to develop and evaluate a machine learning-based model capable of predicting respiratory decompensation events, defined as emergency visits or hospitalizations due to acute deterioration in the patient's underlying respiratory condition. These events reflect episodes of worsening respiratory status that require urgent medical attention. The model uses data from HMV telemonitoring platforms, with the aim of improving patient outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from 482 patients on HMV monitored via ResMed, Philips, and Breas platforms, collected between March 2021 and November 2024 at the Germans Trias i Pujol Hospital in Catalonia, Spain. Data included device use, compliance, mask leakage, and ventilator settings. Decompensation was defined as emergency department visits or hospitalizations. A windowing strategy captured the 5 weeks prior to events. Multiple machine learning models were trained using grid search to identify the optimal hyperparameters, prioritizing recall in order to minimize false negatives. Models were evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation. Finally, Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analysis was used for model interpretability. Results: The final dataset included 157 data windows, balanced for positive and negative cases. Among the models tested, logistic regression achieved the highest recall (mean 0.94, SD 0.06, 95% CI 0.90-0.98) though with moderate accuracy (mean 0.60, SD 0.05, 95% CI 0.56-0.64). The random forest classifier achieved the best balance across metrics (accuracy: mean 0.66, SD 0.10, 95% CI 0.59-0.73; recall: mean 0.78, SD 0.15, 95% CI 0.67-0.89; F1-score: mean 0.70, SD 0.10, 95% CI 0.63-0.77). SHAP analysis revealed that higher use, leakage, and compliance in the week before a decompensation event were key predictors, suggesting compensatory behavior or early clinical deterioration. Overall performance remained moderate, reflecting limitations in sample size, incomplete longitudinal records for daily data, and the absence of key physiological measurements. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of predicting respiratory decompensation using data from HMV telemonitoring systems. Tree-based ensemble models, particularly random forests, provided the most balanced performance, while SHAP analysis offered clinically relevant insights. Although performance was moderate, the findings support further development of predictive tools to enable timely telemedical interventions. Limitations include sample size, missing physiological parameters, and a single-center design. Future research should expand to multicenter datasets and incorporate additional clinical variables to enhance model robustness and generalizability.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→