Real‐time interactive artificial intelligence of things–based prediction for adverse outcomes in adult patients with pneumonia in the emergency department

Background Artificial intelligence of things (AIoT) may be a solution for predicting adverse outcomes in emergency department (ED) patients with pneumonia; however, this issue remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted this study to clarify it. Methods We identified 52,626 adult ED patients with pneum...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic emergency medicine 2021-11, Vol.28 (11), p.1277-1285
Hauptverfasser: Chen, You‐Ming, Kao, Yuan, Hsu, Chien‐Chin, Chen, Chia‐Jung, Ma, Yu‐Shan, Shen, Yu‐Ting, Liu, Tzu‐Lan, Hsu, Shu‐Lien, Lin, Hung‐Jung, Wang, Jhi‐Joung, Huang, Chien‐Cheng, Liu, Chung‐Feng
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Artificial intelligence of things (AIoT) may be a solution for predicting adverse outcomes in emergency department (ED) patients with pneumonia; however, this issue remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted this study to clarify it. Methods We identified 52,626 adult ED patients with pneumonia from three hospitals between 2010 and 2019 for this study. Thirty‐three feature variables from electronic medical records were used to construct an artificial intelligence (AI) model to predict sepsis or septic shock, respiratory failure, and mortality. After comparisons of the predictive accuracies among logistic regression, random forest, support‐vector machine (SVM), light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), multilayer perceptron (MLP), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), we selected the best one to build the model. We further combined the AI model with the Internet of things as AIoT, added an interactive mode, and implemented it in the hospital information system to assist clinicians with decision making in real time. We also compared the AIoT‐based model with the confusion‐urea‐respiratory rate‐blood pressure‐65 (CURB‐65) and pneumonia severity index (PSI) for predicting mortality. Results The best AI algorithms were random forest for sepsis or septic shock (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.781), LightGBM for respiratory failure (AUC = 0.847), and mortality (AUC = 0.835). The AIoT‐based model represented better performance than CURB‐65 and PSI indicators for predicting mortality (0.835 vs. 0.681 and 0.835 vs. 0.728). Conclusions A real‐time interactive AIoT‐based model might be a better tool for predicting adverse outcomes in ED patients with pneumonia. Further validation in other populations is warranted.
ISSN:1069-6563
1553-2712
DOI:10.1111/acem.14339