Personalized risk stratification through attribute matching for clinical decision making in clinical conditions with aspecific symptoms: The example of syncope

Risk stratification is challenging in conditions, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and syncope, which can be the manifestation of many possible underlying diseases. In these cases, decision tools are unlikely to accurately identify all the different adverse events related to the possible etio...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2020-03, Vol.15 (3), p.e0228725-e0228725
Hauptverfasser: Solbiati, Monica, Quinn, James V, Dipaola, Franca, Duca, Piergiorgio, Furlan, Raffaello, Montano, Nicola, Reed, Matthew J, Sheldon, Robert S, Sun, Benjamin C, Ungar, Andrea, Casazza, Giovanni, Costantino, Giorgio
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Risk stratification is challenging in conditions, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and syncope, which can be the manifestation of many possible underlying diseases. In these cases, decision tools are unlikely to accurately identify all the different adverse events related to the possible etiologies. Attribute matching is a prediction method that matches an individual patient to a group of previously observed patients with identical characteristics and known outcome. We used syncope as a paradigm of clinical conditions presenting with aspecific symptoms to test the attribute matching method for the prediction of the personalized risk of adverse events. We selected the 8 predictor variables common to the individual-patient dataset of 5 prospective emergency department studies enrolling 3388 syncope patients. We calculated all possible combinations and the number of patients in each combination. We compared the predictive accuracy of attribute matching and logistic regression. We then classified ten random patients according to clinical judgment and attribute matching. Attribute matching provided 253 of the 384 possible combinations in the dataset. Twelve (4.7%), 35 (13.8%), 50 (19.8%) and 160 (63.2%) combinations had a match size ≥50, ≥30, ≥20 and
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0228725