Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2019
A methodological comparison of risk scores versus decision trees for predicting drug-resistant infections: A case study using extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) bacteremia.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goodman Katherine E, Lessler Justin, Harris Anthony D, Milstone Aaron M, Tamma Pranita D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Timely identification of multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections remains an epidemiological challenge. Statistical models for predicting drug resistance can offer utility where rapid diagnostics are unavailable or resource-impractical. Logistic regression-derived risk scores are common in the healthcare epidemiology literature. Machine learning-derived decision trees are an alternative approach for developing decision support tools. Our group previously reported on a decision tree for predicting ESBL bloodstream infections. Our objective in the current study was to develop a risk score from the same ESBL dataset to compare these 2 methods and to offer general guiding principles for using each approach.
METHODS: Using a dataset of 1,288 patients with Escherichia coli or Klebsiella spp bacteremia, we generated a risk score to predict the likelihood that a bacteremic patient was infected with an ESBL-producer. We evaluated discrimination (original and cross-validated models) using receiver operating characteristic curves and C statistics. We compared risk score and decision tree performance, and we reviewed their practical and methodological attributes.
RESULTS: In total, 194 patients (15%) were infected with ESBL-producing bacteremia. The clinical risk score included 14 variables, compared to the 5 decision-tree variables. The positive and negative predictive values of the risk score and decision tree were similar (>90%), but the C statistic of the risk score (0.87) was 10% higher.
CONCLUSIONS: A decision tree and risk score performed similarly for predicting ESBL infection. The decision tree was more user-friendly, with fewer variables for the end user, whereas the risk score offered higher discrimination and greater flexibility for adjusting sensitivity and specificity.
METHODS: Using a dataset of 1,288 patients with Escherichia coli or Klebsiella spp bacteremia, we generated a risk score to predict the likelihood that a bacteremic patient was infected with an ESBL-producer. We evaluated discrimination (original and cross-validated models) using receiver operating characteristic curves and C statistics. We compared risk score and decision tree performance, and we reviewed their practical and methodological attributes.
RESULTS: In total, 194 patients (15%) were infected with ESBL-producing bacteremia. The clinical risk score included 14 variables, compared to the 5 decision-tree variables. The positive and negative predictive values of the risk score and decision tree were similar (>90%), but the C statistic of the risk score (0.87) was 10% higher.
CONCLUSIONS: A decision tree and risk score performed similarly for predicting ESBL infection. The decision tree was more user-friendly, with fewer variables for the end user, whereas the risk score offered higher discrimination and greater flexibility for adjusting sensitivity and specificity.