Developing a machine learning model to identify delirium risk in geriatric internal medicine inpatients

Novel opportunities for clinical pharmacy research: development of a machine learning model to identify medication related causes of delirium in different patient groups

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has taken the world of science by storm in 2023. The opportunities of this easy to access technology for clinical pharmacy research are yet to be fully understood. The development of a custom-made large language model (LLM) (DELSTAR) trained on a wide range of internationally recognised scientific publication databases, pharmacovigilance sites and international product characteristics to help identify and summarise medication related information on delirium, as a proof-of-concept model, identified new facilitators and barriers for robust clinical pharmacy practice research. This technology holds great promise for the development of much more comprehensive prescribing guidelines, practice support applications for clinical pharmacy, increased patient and prescribing safety and resultant implications for healthcare costs. The challenge will be to ensure its methodologically robust use and the detailed and transparent verification of its information accuracy.

Risk of bias in prognostic models of hospital-induced delirium for medical-surgical units: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess risk of bias in existing prognostic models of hospital-induced delirium for medical-surgical units.

METHODS

APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched on July 8, 2022, to identify original studies which developed and validated prognostic models of hospital-induced delirium for adult patients who were hospitalized in medical-surgical units. The Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies was used for data extraction. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess risk of bias. Risk of bias was assessed across four domains: participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, including ten model development and validation studies and three model validation only studies. The methods in all of the studies were rated to be at high overall risk of bias. The methods of statistical analysis were the greatest source of bias. External validity of models in the included studies was tested at low levels of transportability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the ongoing scientific challenge of developing a valid prognostic model of hospital-induced delirium for medical-surgical units to tailor preventive interventions to patients who are at high risk of this iatrogenic condition. With limited knowledge about generalizable prognosis of hospital-induced delirium in medical-surgical units, existing prognostic models should be used with caution when creating clinical practice policies. Future research protocols must include robust study designs which take into account the perspectives of clinicians to identify and validate risk factors of hospital-induced delirium for accurate and generalizable prognosis in medical-surgical units.

Methodological and Quality Flaws in the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Research: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) is giving rise to a revolution in medicine and health care. Mental health conditions are highly prevalent in many countries, and the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the risk of further erosion of the mental well-being in the population. Therefore, it is relevant to assess the current status of the application of AI toward mental health research to inform about trends, gaps, opportunities, and challenges.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to perform a systematic overview of AI applications in mental health in terms of methodologies, data, outcomes, performance, and quality.

METHODS

A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane databases was conducted to collect records of use cases of AI for mental health disorder studies from January 2016 to November 2021. Records were screened for eligibility if they were a practical implementation of AI in clinical trials involving mental health conditions. Records of AI study cases were evaluated and categorized by the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). Data related to trial settings, collection methodology, features, outcomes, and model development and evaluation were extracted following the CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies) guideline. Further, evaluation of risk of bias is provided.

RESULTS

A total of 429 nonduplicated records were retrieved from the databases and 129 were included for a full assessment-18 of which were manually added. The distribution of AI applications in mental health was found unbalanced between ICD-11 mental health categories. Predominant categories were Depressive disorders (n=70) and Schizophrenia or other primary psychotic disorders (n=26). Most interventions were based on randomized controlled trials (n=62), followed by prospective cohorts (n=24) among observational studies. AI was typically applied to evaluate quality of treatments (n=44) or stratify patients into subgroups and clusters (n=31). Models usually applied a combination of questionnaires and scales to assess symptom severity using electronic health records (n=49) as well as medical images (n=33). Quality assessment revealed important flaws in the process of AI application and data preprocessing pipelines. One-third of the studies (n=56) did not report any preprocessing or data preparation. One-fifth of the models were developed by comparing several methods (n=35) without assessing their suitability in advance and a small proportion reported external validation (n=21). Only 1 paper reported a second assessment of a previous AI model. Risk of bias and transparent reporting yielded low scores due to a poor reporting of the strategy for adjusting hyperparameters, coefficients, and the explainability of the models. International collaboration was anecdotal (n=17) and data and developed models mostly remained private (n=126).

CONCLUSIONS

These significant shortcomings, alongside the lack of information to ensure reproducibility and transparency, are indicative of the challenges that AI in mental health needs to face before contributing to a solid base for knowledge generation and for being a support tool in mental health management.

Comparison of logistic regression and machine learning methods for predicting postoperative delirium in elderly patients: A retrospective study

AIMS

To compare the performance of logistic regression and machine learning methods in predicting postoperative delirium (POD) in elderly patients.

METHOD

This was a retrospective study of perioperative medical data from patients undergoing non-cardiac and non-neurology surgery over 65 years old from January 2014 to August 2019. Forty-six perioperative variables were used to predict POD. A traditional logistic regression and five machine learning models (Random Forest, GBM, AdaBoost, XGBoost, and a stacking ensemble model) were compared by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), sensitivity, specificity, and precision.

RESULTS

In total, 29,756 patients were enrolled, and the incidence of POD was 3.22% after variable screening. AUCs were 0.783 (0.765-0.8) for the logistic regression method, 0.78 for random forest, 0.76 for GBM, 0.74 for AdaBoost, 0.73 for XGBoost, and 0.77 for the stacking ensemble model. The respective sensitivities for the 6 aforementioned models were 74.2%, 72.2%, 76.8%, 63.6%, 71.6%, and 67.4%. The respective specificities for the 6 aforementioned models were 70.7%, 99.8%, 96.5%, 98.8%, 96.5%, and 96.1%. The respective precision values for the 6 aforementioned models were 7.8%, 52.3%, 55.6%, 57%, 54.5%, and 56.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal application of the logistic regression model could provide quick and convenient POD risk identification to help improve the perioperative management of surgical patients because of its better sensitivity, fewer variables, and easier interpretability than the machine learning model.