Using machine learning to model dose–response relationships

Rationale, aims and objectivesEstablishing the relationship between various doses of an exposure and a response variable is integral to many studies in health care. Linear parametric models, widely used for estimating dose–response relationships, have several limitations. This paper employs the optimal discriminant analysis (ODA) machine‐learning algorithm to determine the degree to which exposure dose can be distinguished based on the distribution of the response variable. By framing the dose–response relationship as a classification problem, machine learning can provide the same functionality as conventional models, but can additionally make individual‐level predictions, which may be helpful in practical applications like establishing responsiveness to prescribed drug regimens.MethodUsing data from a study measuring the responses of blood flow in the forearm to the intra‐arterial administration of isoproterenol (separately for 9 black and 13 white men, and pooled), we compare the results estimated from a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with those estimated using ODA.ResultsGeneralized estimating equations and ODA both identified many statistically significant dose–response relationships, separately by race and for pooled data. Post hoc comparisons between doses indicated ODA (based on exact P values) was consistently more conservative than GEE (based on estimated P values). Compared with ODA, GEE produced twice as many instances of paradoxical confounding (findings from analysis of pooled data that are inconsistent with findings from analyses stratified by race).ConclusionsGiven its unique advantages and greater analytic flexibility, maximum‐accuracy machine‐learning methods like ODA should be considered as the primary analytic approach in dose–response applications.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134965/1/jep12573_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134965/2/jep12573.pd

Evaluation of atrial fibrillation using wearable device signals and home blood pressure data in the Michigan Predictive Activity & Clinical Trajectories in Health (MIPACT) Study: A Subgroup Analysis (MIPACT-AFib)

BackgroundThe rising adoption of wearable technology increases the potential to identify arrhythmias. However, specificity of these notifications is poorly defined and may cause anxiety and unnecessary resource utilization. Herein, we report results of a follow-up screening protocol for incident atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) within a large observational digital health study.MethodsThe MIPACT Study enrolled 6,765 adult patients who were provided an Apple Watch and blood pressure (BP) monitors. From March to July 2019, participants were asked to contact the study team for any irregular heart rate (HR) notification. They were assessed using structured questionnaires and asked to provide 6 Apple Watch EKGs. Those with arrhythmias or non-diagnostic EKGs were sent 7-day monitors. The EHR was reviewed after 3 years to determine if participants developed arrhythmias.Results86 participants received notifications and met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 50.5 (SD 16.9) years, and 46 (53.3%) were female. Of 76 participants assessed by the study team, 32 (42.1%) reported anxiety surrounding notifications. Of 59 participants who sent at least 1 EKG, 52 (88.1%) were in sinus rhythm, 3 (5.1%) AF, 2 (3.4%) indeterminate, and 2 (3.4%) sinus bradycardia. Cardiac monitor demonstrated AF in 2 of 3 participants with AF on Apple Watch EKGs. 2 contacted their PCPs and were diagnosed with AF. In total, 5 cases of AF were diagnosed with 1 additional case identified during EHR review.ConclusionWearable devices produce alarms that can frequently be anxiety provoking. Research is needed to determine the implications of these alarms and appropriate follow-up

Contemporary evidence: baseline data from the D2B Alliance

© 2008 Bradley et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Hospital characteristics and patient populations served by physician owned and non physician owned orthopedic specialty hospitals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The emergence of physician owned specialty hospitals focusing on high margin procedures has generated significant controversy. Yet, it is unclear whether physician owned specialty hospitals differ significantly from non physician owned specialty hospitals and thus merit the additional scrutiny that has been proposed. Our objective was to assess whether physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals and non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals differ with respect to hospital characteristics and patient populations served.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a descriptive study using Medicare data of beneficiaries who underwent total hip replacement (THR) (N = 10,478) and total knee replacement (TKR) (N = 15,312) in 29 physician owned and 8 non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals during 1999–2003. We compared hospital characteristics of physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals including procedural volumes of major joint replacements (THR and TKR), hospital teaching status, and for profit status. We then compared demographics and prevalence of common comorbid conditions for patients treated in physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals. Finally, we examined whether the socio-demographic characteristics of the neighborhoods where physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals differed, as measured by zip code level data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Physician owned specialty hospitals performed fewer major joint replacements on Medicare beneficiaries in 2003 than non physician owed specialty hospitals (64 vs. 678, P < .001), were less likely to be affiliated with a medical school (6% vs. 43%, P = .05), and were more likely to be for profit (94% vs. 28%, P = .001). Patients who underwent major joint replacement in physician owned specialty hospitals were less likely to be black than patients in non physician owned specialty hospitals (2.5% vs. 3.1% for THR, P = .15; 1.8% vs. 6.3% for TKR, P < .001), yet physician owned specialty hospitals were located in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of black residents (8.2% vs. 6.7%, P = .76). Patients in physician owned hospitals had lower rates of most common comorbid conditions including heart failure and obesity (P < .05 for both).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals differ significantly from non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals and may warrant the additional scrutiny policy makers have proposed.</p

ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 Performance Measures for Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Ó 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, Inc., American Medical Association, and National Committee for Quality Assurance Published by Elsevier Inc. Vol. 63, No. 7, 2014 ISSN 0735-1097/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.12.003 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 Performance Measures for Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance Developed in Collaboration With the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Mended Hearts Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Mended Hearts WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA, Co-Chair*; Carl L. Tommaso, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI, Co-Chairy; H. Vernon Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI*; Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, MACP*; Joseph C. Cleveland, J R , MDz; R. Adams Dudley, MD, MBA; Peter Louis Duffy, MD, MMM, FACC, FSCAIy; David P. Faxon, MD, FACC, FAHA*; Hitinder S. Gurm, MD, FACC; Lawrence A. Hamilton, Neil C. Jensen, MHA, MBA; Richard A. Josephson, MD, MS, FACC, FAHA, FAACVPRx; David J. Malenka, MD, FACC, FAHA*; Calin V. Maniu, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAIy; Kevin W. McCabe, MD; James D. Mortimer, Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC*; Stephen D. Persell, MD, MPH; John S. Rumsfeld, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHAjj; Kendrick A. Shunk, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI*; Sidney C. Smith, J R , MD, FACC, FAHA, FACP{; Stephen J. Stanko, MBA, BA, AA#; Brook Watts, MD, MS *ACC/AHA Representative. ySociety of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Representative. zSociety of Thoracic Surgeons Representative. xAmerican Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation Representative. kACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison. {National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Representative. #Mended Hearts Representative. The measure specifications were approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees, American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, in January 2013 and the American Medical Association–Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement in February 2013. This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees and the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in October 2013, and the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions in December 2013. The American College of Cardiology requests that this document be cited as follows: Nallamothu BK, Tommaso CL, Anderson HV, Anderson JL, Cleveland JC, Dudley RA, Duffy PL, Faxon DP, Gurm HS, Hamilton LA, Jensen NC, Josephson RA, Malenka DJ, Maniu CV, McCabe KW, Mortimer JD, Patel MR, Persell SD, Rumsfeld JS, Shunk KA, Smith SC, Stanko SJ, Watts B. ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 perfor- mance measures for adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:722–45. This article has been copublished in Circulation. Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org) and the American Heart Asso- ciation (http://my.americanheart.org). For copies of this document, please contact Elsevier Inc. Reprint Department, fax (212) 633-3820, e-mail [email protected]. Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American College of Cardiology. Requests may be completed online via the Elsevier site (http://www.elsevier.com/authors/obtaining- permission-to-re-use-elsevier-material). This Physician Performance Measurement Set (PPMS) and related data specifications were developed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (the Consortium), including the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the American Medical Association (AMA), to facilitate quality-improvement activities by physicians. The performance measures contained in this PPMS are not clinical guidelines, do not establish a standard of medical care, and have not been tested for all potential applications. Although copyrighted, they can be reproduced and distributed, without modification, for noncommercial purposesdfor example, use by health care pro

Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Stents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed.</p> <p>The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results.</p

N-acetylcysteine does not prevent contrast-induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease: a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) constitute to be a high-risk population for the development of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), in which the incidence of CIN is estimated to be as high as 50%. We performed this trial to assess the efficacy of <it>N</it>-acetylcysteine (NAC) in the prevention of this complication.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a prospective, double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical trial, we studied 90 patients undergoing elective diagnostic coronary angiography with DM and CKD (serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dL for men and ≥ 1.4 mg/dL for women). The patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral NAC (600 mg BID, starting 24 h before the procedure) or placebo, in adjunct to hydration. Serum creatinine was measured prior to and 48 h after coronary angiography. The primary end-point was the occurrence of CIN, defined as an increase in serum creatinine ≥ 0.5 mg/dL (44.2 μmol/L) or ≥ 25% above baseline at 48 h after exposure to contrast medium.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Complete data on the outcomes were available on 87 patients, 45 of whom had received NAC. There were no significant differences between the NAC and placebo groups in baseline characteristics, amount of hydration, or type and volume of contrast used, except in gender (male/female, 20/25 and 34/11, respectively; P = 0.005) and the use of statins (62.2% and 37.8%, respectively; P = 0.034). CIN occurred in 5 out of 45 (11.1%) patients in the NAC group and 6 out of 42 (14.3%) patients in the placebo group (P = 0.656).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There was no detectable benefit for the prophylactic administration of oral NAC over an aggressive hydration protocol in patients with DM and CKD.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00808795</p

Hospital variation in transfusion and infection after cardiac surgery: a cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Transfusion practices in hospitalised patients are being re-evaluated, in part due to studies indicating adverse effects in patients receiving large quantities of stored blood. Concomitant with this re-examination have been reports showing variability in the use of specific blood components. This investigation was designed to assess hospital variation in blood use and outcomes in cardiac surgery patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluated outcomes in 24,789 Medicare beneficiaries in the state of Michigan, USA who received coronary artery bypass graft surgery from 2003 to 2006. Using a cohort design, patients were followed from hospital admission to assess transfusions, in-hospital infection and mortality, as well as hospital readmission and mortality 30 days after discharge. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to calculate the intrahospital correlation coefficient (for 40 hospitals) and compare outcomes by transfusion status.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 30% (95 CI, 20% to 42%) of the variance in transfusion practices was attributable to hospital site. Allogeneic blood use by hospital ranged from 72.5% to 100% in women and 49.7% to 100% in men. Allogeneic, but not autologous, blood transfusion increased the odds of in-hospital infection 2.0-fold (95% CI 1.6 to 2.5), in-hospital mortality 4.7-fold (95% CI 2.4 to 9.2), 30-day readmission 1.4-fold (95% CI 1.2 to 1.6), and 30-day mortality 2.9-fold (95% CI 1.4 to 6.0) in elective surgeries. Allogeneic transfusion was associated with infections of the genitourinary system, respiratory tract, bloodstream, digestive tract and skin, as well as infection with <it>Clostridium difficile</it>. For each 1% increase in hospital transfusion rates, there was a 0.13% increase in predicted infection rates.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Allogeneic blood transfusion was associated with an increased risk of infection at multiple sites, suggesting a system-wide immune response. Hospital variation in transfusion practices after coronary artery bypass grafting was considerable, indicating that quality efforts may be able to influence practice and improve outcomes.</p