论文标题

治疗前左派的研究完整急诊科患者:一个优化的解释机器学习框架

A Study of Left Before Treatment Complete Emergency Department Patients: An Optimized Explanatory Machine Learning Framework

论文作者

Ahmed, Abdulaziz, Aram, Khalid Y., Tutun, Salih

论文摘要

治疗完成前(LBTC)患者的左派问题在急诊科(EDS)中很常见。此问题代表了医疗法的风险,可能会导致收入损失。因此,了解导致患者在治疗完成前离开的因素对于减轻和消除这些不良反应至关重要。本文提出了一个研究影响ED中LBTC结果的因素的框架。该框架集成了机器学习,元启发式优化和模型解释技术。元启发式优化用于高参数优化 - 机器学习模型开发的主要挑战之一。采用了三种元启发式优化算法来优化极端梯度增强(XGB)的参数,这些参数是模拟退火(SA),自适应模拟退火(ASA)和自适应Tabu模拟的模拟退火(ATSA)。优化的XGB模型用于预测ED治疗的患者的LBTC结局。使用特征选择阶段产生的四个数据组对设计的算法进行了训练和测试。具有最佳预测性能的模型使用塑构添加说明(SHAP)方法来解释。研究结果表明,ATSA-XGB的表现优于其他模式配置,其曲线下的面积(AUC),敏感性,特异性和F1得分分别为86.61%,87.50%,85.71%,87.51%和86.60%。使用SHAP方法确定并解释了每个特征的效果的程度和方向。

The issue of left before treatment complete (LBTC) patients is common in emergency departments (EDs). This issue represents a medico-legal risk and may cause a revenue loss. Thus, understanding the factors that cause patients to leave before treatment is complete is vital to mitigate and potentially eliminate these adverse effects. This paper proposes a framework for studying the factors that affect LBTC outcomes in EDs. The framework integrates machine learning, metaheuristic optimization, and model interpretation techniques. Metaheuristic optimization is used for hyperparameter optimization--one of the main challenges of machine learning model development. Three metaheuristic optimization algorithms are employed for optimizing the parameters of extreme gradient boosting (XGB), which are simulated annealing (SA), adaptive simulated annealing (ASA), and adaptive tabu simulated annealing (ATSA). The optimized XGB models are used to predict the LBTC outcomes for the patients under treatment in ED. The designed algorithms are trained and tested using four data groups resulting from the feature selection phase. The model with the best predictive performance is interpreted using SHaply Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method. The findings show that ATSA-XGB outperformed other mode configurations with an accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score of 86.61%, 87.50%, 85.71%, 87.51%, and 86.60%, respectively. The degree and the direction of effects of each feature were determined and explained using the SHAP method.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源