Machine Learning Approach to Predict In‐Hospital Mortality in Patients Admitted for Peripheral Artery Disease in the United States

Abstract

Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects >10 million people in the United States. PAD is associated with poor outcomes, including premature death. Machine learning (ML) has been increasingly used on big data to predict clinical outcomes. This study aims to develop ML models to predict in‐hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for PAD based on a national database. Methods and Results Inpatient hospitalization data were obtained from the 2016 to 2019 National Inpatient Sample. A total of 150 921 inpatients were identified with a primary diagnosis of PAD and PAD‐related procedures using codes of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD‐10‐CM ) and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD‐10‐PCS) . Four ML models, including logistic regression, random forest, light gradient boosting, and extreme gradient boosting models, were trained to predict the risk of in‐hospital death based on a selection of variables, including patient characteristics, comorbidities, procedures, and hospital‐related factors. In‐hospital mortality occurred in 1.8% of patients. The performance of the 4 models was comparable, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranging from 0.83 to 0.85, sensitivity of 77% to 82%, and specificity of 72% to 75%. These results suggest adequate predictability for clinical decision‐making. In all 4 models, the total number of diagnoses and procedures, age, endovascular revascularization procedure, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and diabetes with complications were critical predictors of in‐hospital mortality. Conclusions This study demonstrates the feasibility of ML in predicting in‐hospital mortality in patients with a primary PAD diagnosis. Findings highlight the potential of ML models in identifying high‐risk patients for poor outcomes and guiding personalized intervention.

Machine learning to predict the occurrence of thyroid nodules: towards a quantitative approach for judicious utilization of thyroid ultrasonography

“…While previous studies have yielded inconclusive findings regarding the advantage of ML over traditional statistics in performing different clinical tasks ( 34 , 35 , 59 , 60 ), it is generally believed that complex ML models often require big data to achieve optimal performance ( 61 ). This study involved a substantial dataset of more than 4,000 subjects with a balanced class distribution, where all three ML models showed significant improvements over the standard logistic regression, albeit to a modest extent.…”

“…The LightGBM has a similar structure to the XGBoost but uses a different strategy to split the data. These ML models represent the state-of-the-art ML techniques that show remarkable outcomes in a variety of tasks (32)(33)(34)(35). Logistic regression served as a baseline model to allow unbiased performance assessment for these ML models.…”

Machine learning to predict occult metastatic lymph nodes along the recurrent laryngeal nerves in thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

“…Meanwhile, there is another concern that a small number of the events of interest may limit the potentials of ML models in discovering the underlying patterns from these rare “positive” cases. This situation is in fact common in many diseases with low incidence or prevalence rates [ 38 , 43 ]. For example, the positive RLN nodes in this study only accounts for less than 20% on each side, which could result in a model biased towards a negative prediction.…”

Long‐Term Mortality Predictors Using a Machine‐Learning Approach in Patients With Chronic Limb‐Threatening Ischemia After Peripheral Vascular Intervention

“…Following a similar approach as previously conducted studies, we randomly divided our cohort into training (80%) and testing samples (20%). 30 , 31 Baseline variables between the 2 samples were summarized as count with percentage and were compared using χ 2 or Fisher exact test for categorical variables; continuous variables were summarized as mean with SD and were compared using Student t ‐test. The standardized difference was calculated to assess the effect size between the 2 samples, with a value <0.10 considered negligible.…”