The derivation of an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision-based trauma-related mortality model using machine learning.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 34554135.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1097/TA.0000000000003416.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Existing mortality prediction models have attempted to quantify injury burden following trauma-related admissions with the most notable being the Injury Severity Score (ISS). Although easy to calculate, it requires additional administrative coding. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-based models such as the Trauma Mortality Prediction Model (TMPM-ICD10) circumvent these limitations, but they use linear modeling, which may not adequately capture the intricate relationships of injuries on mortality. Using ICD-10 coding and machine learning (ML) algorithms, the present study used the National Trauma Data Bank to develop mortality prediction models whose performance was compared with logistic regression, ISS, and TMPM-ICD10. The 2015 to 2017 National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify adults following trauma-related admissions. Of 8,021 ICD-10 codes, injuries were categorized into 1,495 unique variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), a ML technique that uses iterations of decision trees, was used to develop mortality models. Model discrimination was compared with logistic regression, ISS, and TMPM-ICD10 using receiver operating characteristic curve and probabilistic accuracy with calibration curves. Of 1,611,063 patients, 54,870 (3.41%) experienced in-hospital mortality. Compared with those who survived, those who died more frequently suffered from penetrating trauma and had a greater number of injuries. The XGBoost model exhibited superior receiver operating characteristic curve (0.863 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.862-0.864]) compared with logistic regression (0.845 [95% CI, 0.844-0.846]), ISS (0.828 [95% CI, 0.827-0.829]), and TMPM-ICD10 (0.861 [95% CI, 0.860-0.862]) (all p < 0.001). Importantly, the ML model also had significantly improved calibration compared with other methodologies (XGBoost, coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.993; logistic regression, R2 = 0.981; ISS, R2 = 0.649; TMPM-ICD10, R2 = 0.830). Machine learning models using XGBoost demonstrated superior performance and calibration compared with logistic regression, ISS, and TMPM-ICD10. Such approaches in quantifying injury severity may improve its utility in mortality prognostication, quality improvement, and trauma research. Prognostic and Epidemiologic; level III.
Medical subject headings
- International Classification of Diseases
- Machine Learning
- Wounds and Injuries