Predicting adverse long-term neurocognitive outcomes after pediatric intensive care unit admission

Background and objective: Critically ill children may suffer from impaired neurocognitive functions years after ICU (intensive care unit) discharge. To assess neurocognitive functions, these children are subjected to a fixed sequence of tests. Undergoing all tests is, however, arduous for former pediatric ICU patients, resulting in interrupted evaluations where several neurocognitive deficiencies remain undetected. As a solution, we propose using machine learning to predict the optimal order of tests for each child, reducing the number of tests required to identify the most severe neurocognitive deficiencies. Methods: We have compared the current clinical approach against several machine learning methods, mainly multi-target regression and label ranking methods. We have also proposed a new method that builds several multi-target predictive models and combines the outputs into a ranking that prioritizes the worse neurocognitive outcomes. We used data available at discharge, from children who participated in the PEPaNIC-RCT trial (ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT01536275), as well as data from a 2-year follow-up study. The institutional review boards at each participating site have also approved this follow-up study (ML8052; NL49708.078; Pro00038098). Results: Our proposed method managed to outperform other machine learning methods and also the current clinical practice. Precisely, our method reaches approximately 80% precision when considering top-4 outcomes, in comparison to 65% and 78% obtained by the current clinical practice and the state-of-the-art method in label ranking, respectively. Conclusions: Our experiments demonstrated that machine learning can be competitive or even superior to the current testing order employed in clinical practice, suggesting that our model can be used to severely reduce the number of tests necessary for each child. Moreover, the results indicate that possible long-term adverse outcomes are already predictable as early as at ICU discharge. Thus, our work can be seen as the first step to allow more personalized follow-up after ICU discharge leading to preventive care rather than curative.</p

Predicting adverse long-term neurocognitive outcomes after pediatric intensive care unit admission

Background and objective: Critically ill children may suffer from impaired neurocognitive functions years after ICU (intensive care unit) discharge. To assess neurocognitive functions, these children are subjected to a fixed sequence of tests. Undergoing all tests is, however, arduous for former pediatric ICU patients, resulting in interrupted evaluations where several neurocognitive deficiencies remain undetected. As a solution, we propose using machine learning to predict the optimal order of tests for each child, reducing the number of tests required to identify the most severe neurocognitive deficiencies. Methods: We have compared the current clinical approach against several machine learning methods, mainly multi-target regression and label ranking methods. We have also proposed a new method that builds several multi-target predictive models and combines the outputs into a ranking that prioritizes the worse neurocognitive outcomes. We used data available at discharge, from children who participated in the PEPaNIC-RCT trial (ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT01536275), as well as data from a 2-year follow-up study. The institutional review boards at each participating site have also approved this follow-up study (ML8052; NL49708.078; Pro00038098). Results: Our proposed method managed to outperform other machine learning methods and also the current clinical practice. Precisely, our method reaches approximately 80% precision when considering top-4 outcomes, in comparison to 65% and 78% obtained by the current clinical practice and the state-of-the-art method in label ranking, respectively. Conclusions: Our experiments demonstrated that machine learning can be competitive or even superior to the current testing order employed in clinical practice, suggesting that our model can be used to severely reduce the number of tests necessary for each child. Moreover, the results indicate that possible long-term adverse outcomes are already predictable as early as at ICU discharge. Thus, our work can be seen as the first step to allow more personalized follow-up after ICU discharge leading to preventive care rather than curative.</p

Clinical prediction models for acute kidney injury.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the currently available prediction models for the development of acute kidney injury in heterogeneous adult intensive care units. METHODS: A systematic review of clinical prediction models for acute kidney injury in adult intensive care unit populations was carried out. PubMed® was searched for publications reporting on the development of a novel prediction model, validation of an established model, or impact of an existing prediction model for early acute kidney injury diagnosis in intensive care units. RESULTS: We screened 583 potentially relevant articles. Among the 32 remaining articles in the first selection, only 5 met the inclusion criteria. The nonstandardized adaptations that were made to define baseline serum creatinine when the preadmission value was missing led to heterogeneous definitions of the outcome. Commonly included predictors were sepsis, age, and serum creatinine level. The final models included between 5 and 19 risk factors. The areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves to predict acute kidney injury development in the internal validation cohorts ranged from 0.78 to 0.88. Only two studies were externally validated. CONCLUSION: Clinical prediction models for acute kidney injury can help in applying more timely preventive interventions to the right patients. However, in intensive care unit populations, few models have been externally validated. In addition, heterogeneous definitions for acute kidney injury and evaluation criteria and the lack of impact analysis hamper a thorough comparison of existing models. Future research is needed to validate the established models and to analyze their clinical impact before they can be applied in clinical practice.status: publishe