Prediction of blood lactate values in critically ill patients: a retrospective multi-center cohort study

Abstract Elevations in initially obtained serum lactate levels are strong predictors of mortality in critically ill patients. Identifying patients whose serum lactate levels are more likely to increase can alert physicians to intensify care and guide them in the frequency of tending the blood test. We investigate whether machine learning models can predict subsequent serum lactate changes. We investigated serum lactate change prediction using the MIMIC-III and eICU-CRD datasets in internal as well as external validation of the eICU cohort on the MIMIC-III cohort. Three subgroups were defined based on the initial lactate levels: (i) normal group ( 4 mmol/L). Outcomes were defined based on increase or decrease of serum lactate levels between the groups. We also performed sensitivity analysis by defining the outcome as lactate change of > 10% and furthermore investigated the influence of the time interval between subsequent lactate measurements on predictive performance. The LSTM models were able to predict deterioration of serum lactate values of MIMIC-III patients with an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.762–0.771) for the normal group, 0.77 (95% CI 0.768–0.772) for the mild group, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.840–0.851) for the severe group, with only a slightly lower performance in the external validation. The LSTM demonstrated good discrimination of patients who had deterioration in serum lactate levels. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate whether utilization of a clinical decision support tool based on these results could positively impact decision-making and patient outcomes

The advent of medical artificial intelligence: lessons from the Japanese approach

Artificial intelligence or AI has been heralded as the most transformative technology in healthcare, including critical care medicine. Globally, healthcare specialists and health ministries are being pressured to create and implement a roadmap to incorporate applications of AI into care delivery. To date, the majority of Japan’s approach to AI has been anchored in industry, and the challenges that have occurred therein offer important lessons for nations developing new AI strategies. Notably, the demand for an AI-literate workforce has outpaced training programs and knowledge. This is particularly observable within medicine, where clinicians may be unfamiliar with the technology. National policy and private sector involvement have shown promise in developing both workforce and AI applications in healthcare. In combination with Japan’s unique national healthcare system and aggregable healthcare and socioeconomic data, Japan has a rich opportunity to lead in the field of medical AI

Staff perspectives on the influence of patient characteristics on alarm management in the intensive care unit: a cross-sectional survey study

Abstract Background High rates of clinical alarms in the intensive care unit can result in alarm fatigue among staff. Individualization of alarm thresholds is regarded as one measure to reduce non-actionable alarms. The aim of this study was to investigate staff’s perceptions of alarm threshold individualization according to patient characteristics and disease status. Methods This is a cross-sectional survey study (February-July 2020). Intensive care nurses and physicians were sampled by convenience. Data was collected using an online questionnaire. Results Staff view the individualization of alarm thresholds in the monitoring of vital signs as important. The extent to which alarm thresholds are adapted from the normal range varies depending on the vital sign monitored, the reason for clinical deterioration, and the professional group asked. Vital signs used for hemodynamic monitoring (heart rate and blood pressure) were most subject to alarm individualizations. Staff are ambivalent regarding the integration of novel technological features into alarm management. Conclusions All relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, hospital management, and industry, must collaborate to establish a “standard for individualization,” moving away from ad hoc alarm management to an intelligent, data-driven alarm management. Making alarms meaningful and trustworthy again has the potential to mitigate alarm fatigue – a major cause of stress in clinical staff and considerable hazard to patient safety. Trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03514173) on 02/05/2018

Global healthcare fairness: We should be sharing more, not less, data.

The availability of large, deidentified health datasets has enabled significant innovation in using machine learning (ML) to better understand patients and their diseases. However, questions remain regarding the true privacy of this data, patient control over their data, and how we regulate data sharing in a way that that does not encumber progress or further potentiate biases for underrepresented populations. After reviewing the literature on potential reidentifications of patients in publicly available datasets, we argue that the cost-measured in terms of access to future medical innovations and clinical software-of slowing ML progress is too great to limit sharing data through large publicly available databases for concerns of imperfect data anonymization. This cost is especially great for developing countries where the barriers preventing inclusion in such databases will continue to rise, further excluding these populations and increasing existing biases that favor high-income countries. Preventing artificial intelligence's progress towards precision medicine and sliding back to clinical practice dogma may pose a larger threat than concerns of potential patient reidentification within publicly available datasets. While the risk to patient privacy should be minimized, we believe this risk will never be zero, and society has to determine an acceptable risk threshold below which data sharing can occur-for the benefit of a global medical knowledge system

Varying association of laboratory values with reference ranges and outcomes in critically ill patients: An analysis of data from five databases in four countries across Asia, Europe and North America

Background Despite wide usage across all areas of medicine, it is uncertain how useful standard reference ranges of laboratory values are for critically ill patients. Objectives The aim of this study is to assess the distributions of standard laboratory measurements in more than 330 selected intensive care units (ICUs) across the USA, Amsterdam, Beijing and Tarragona; compare differences and similarities across different geographical locations and evaluate how they may be associated with differences in length of stay (LOS) and mortality in the ICU. Methods A multi-centre, retrospective, cross-sectional study of data from five databases for adult patients first admitted to an ICU between 2001 and 2019 was conducted. The included databases contained patient-level data regarding demographics, interventions, clinical outcomes and laboratory results. Kernel density estimation functions were applied to the distributions of laboratory tests, and the overlapping coefficient and Cohen standardised mean difference were used to quantify differences in these distributions. Results The 259 382 patients studied across five databases in four countries showed a high degree of heterogeneity with regard to demographics, case mix, interventions and outcomes. A high level of divergence in the studied laboratory results (creatinine, haemoglobin, lactate, sodium) from the locally used reference ranges was observed, even when stratified by outcome. Conclusion Standardised reference ranges have limited relevance to ICU patients across a range of geographies. The development of context-specific reference ranges, especially as it relates to clinical outcomes like LOS and mortality, may be more useful to clinicians

Varying association of laboratory values with reference ranges and outcomes in critically ill patients: an analysis of data from five databases in four countries across Asia, Europe and North America

Background Despite wide usage across all areas of medicine, it is uncertain how useful standard reference ranges of laboratory values are for critically ill patients. Objectives The aim of this study is to assess the distributions of standard laboratory measurements in more than 330 selected intensive care units (ICUs) across the USA, Amsterdam, Beijing and Tarragona; compare differences and similarities across different geographical locations and evaluate how they may be associated with differences in length of stay (LOS) and mortality in the ICU. Methods A multi-centre, retrospective, cross-sectional study of data from five databases for adult patients first admitted to an ICU between 2001 and 2019 was conducted. The included databases contained patient-level data regarding demographics, interventions, clinical outcomes and laboratory results. Kernel density estimation functions were applied to the distributions of laboratory tests, and the overlapping coefficient and Cohen standardised mean difference were used to quantify differences in these distributions. Results The 259 382 patients studied across five databases in four countries showed a high degree of heterogeneity with regard to demographics, case mix, interventions and outcomes. A high level of divergence in the studied laboratory results (creatinine, haemoglobin, lactate, sodium) from the locally used reference ranges was observed, even when stratified by outcome. Conclusion Standardised reference ranges have limited relevance to ICU patients across a range of geographies. The development of context-specific reference ranges, especially as it relates to clinical outcomes like LOS and mortality, may be more useful to clinicians

Complete list of individual cases on media about personal information disclosure.

(PDF)</p

Open health data reidentification PubMed review results.

(PDF)</p