Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userPredicting Hyperkalemia in the ICU and Evaluation of Generalizability and Interpretability
107
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Hyperkalemia is a potentially life-threatening condition that can lead to fatal arrhythmias. Early identification of high risk patients can inform clinical care to mitigate the risk. While hyperkalemia is often a complication of acute kidney injury (AKI), it also occurs in the absence of AKI. We developed predictive models to identify intensive care unit (ICU) patients at risk of developing hyperkalemia by using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) and the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). Our methodology focused on building multiple models, optimizing for interpretability through model selection, and simulating various clinical scenarios. In order to determine if our models perform accurately on patients with and without AKI, we evaluated the following clinical cases: (i) predicting hyperkalemia after AKI within 14 days of ICU admission, (ii) predicting hyperkalemia within 14 days of ICU admission regardless of AKI status, and compared different lead times for (i) and (ii). Both clinical scenarios were modeled using logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and XGBoost. Using observations from the first day in the ICU, our models were able to predict hyperkalemia with an AUC of (i) 0.79, 0.81, 0.81 and (ii) 0.81, 0.85, 0.85 for LR, RF, and XGBoost respectively. We found that 4 out of the top 5 features were consistent across the models. AKI stage was significant in the models that included all patients with or without AKI, but not in the models which only included patients with AKI. This suggests that while AKI is important for hyperkalemia, the specific stage of AKI may not be as important. Our findings require further investigation and confirmation.
rate research
Read More
Datasets are rarely a realistic approximation of the target population. Say, prevalence is misrepresented, image quality is above clinical standards, etc. This mismatch is known as sampling bias. Sampling biases are a major hindrance for machine learning models. They cause significant gaps between model performance in the lab and in the real world. Our work is a solution to prevalence bias. Prevalence bias is the discrepancy between the prevalence of a pathology and its sampling rate in the training dataset, introduced upon collecting data or due to the practioner rebalancing the training batches. This paper lays the theoretical and computational framework for training models, and for prediction, in the presence of prevalence bias. Concretely a bias-corrected loss function, as well as bias-corrected predictive rules, are derived under the principles of Bayesian risk minimization. The loss exhibits a direct connection to the information gain. It offers a principled alternative to heuristic training losses and complements test-time procedures based on selecting an operating point from summary curves. It integrates seamlessly in the current paradigm of (deep) learning using stochastic backpropagation and naturally with Bayesian models.
Recently, several classifiers that combine primary tumor data, like gene expression data, and secondary data sources, such as protein-protein interaction networks, have been proposed for predicting outcome in breast cancer. In these approaches, new composite features are typically constructed by aggregating the expression levels of several genes. The secondary data sources are employed to guide this aggregation. Although many studies claim that these approaches improve classification performance over single gene classifiers, the gain in performance is difficult to assess. This stems mainly from the fact that different breast cancer data sets and validation procedures are employed to assess the performance. Here we address these issues by employing a large cohort of six breast cancer data sets as benchmark set and by performing an unbiased evaluation of the classification accuracies of the different approaches. Contrary to previous claims, we find that composite feature classifiers do not outperform simple single gene classifiers. We investigate the effect of (1) the number of selected features; (2) the specific gene set from which features are selected; (3) the size of the training set and (4) the heterogeneity of the data set on the performance of composite feature and single gene classifiers. Strikingly, we find that randomization of secondary data sources, which destroys all biological information in these sources, does not result in a deterioration in performance of composite feature classifiers. Finally, we show that when a proper correction for gene set size is performed, the stability of single gene sets is similar to the stability of composite feature sets. Based on these results there is currently no reason to prefer prognostic classifiers based on composite features over single gene classifiers for predicting outcome in breast cancer.
Recent years have seen a boom in interest in machine learning systems that can provide a human-understandable rationale for their predictions or decisions. However, exactly what kinds of explanation are truly human-interpretable remains poorly understood. This work advances our understanding of what makes explanations interpretable under three specific tasks that users may perform with machine learning systems: simulation of the response, verification of a suggested response, and determining whether the correctness of a suggested response changes under a change to the inputs. Through carefully controlled human-subject experiments, we identify regularizers that can be used to optimize for the interpretability of machine learning systems. Our results show that the type of complexity matters: cognitive chunks (newly defined concepts) affect performance more than variable repetitions, and these trends are consistent across tasks and domains. This suggests that there may exist some common design principles for explanation systems.
Machine learning models have had discernible achievements in a myriad of applications. However, most of these models are black-boxes, and it is obscure how the decisions are made by them. This makes the models unreliable and untrustworthy. To provide insights into the decision making processes of these models, a variety of traditional interpretable models have been proposed. Moreover, to generate more human-friendly explanations, recent work on interpretability tries to answer questions related to causality such as Why does this model makes such decisions? or Was it a specific feature that caused the decision made by the model?. In this work, models that aim to answer causal questions are referred to as causal interpretable models. The existing surveys have covered concepts and methodologies of traditional interpretability. In this work, we present a comprehensive survey on causal interpretable models from the aspects of the problems and methods. In addition, this survey provides in-depth insights into the existing evaluation metrics for measuring interpretability, which can help practitioners understand for what scenarios each evaluation metric is suitable.
Adverse drug-drug interactions (DDIs) remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Identifying potential DDIs during the drug design process is critical for patients and society. Although several computational models have been proposed for DDI prediction, there are still limitations: (1) specialized design of drug representation for DDI predictions is lacking; (2) predictions are based on limited labelled data and do not generalize well to unseen drugs or DDIs; and (3) models are characterized by a large number of parameters, thus are hard to interpret. In this work, we develop a ChemicAl SubstrucTurE Representation (CASTER) framework that predicts DDIs given chemical structures of drugs.CASTER aims to mitigate these limitations via (1) a sequential pattern mining module rooted in the DDI mechanism to efficiently characterize functional sub-structures of drugs; (2) an auto-encoding module that leverages both labelled and unlabelled chemical structure data to improve predictive accuracy and generalizability; and (3) a dictionary learning module that explains the prediction via a small set of coefficients which measure the relevance of each input sub-structures to the DDI outcome. We evaluated CASTER on two real-world DDI datasets and showed that it performed better than state-of-the-art baselines and provided interpretable predictions.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
