Comparative performance of intensive care mortality prediction models based on manually curated versus automatically extracted electronic health record data.

Introduction: Benchmarking intensive care units for audit and feedback is frequently based on comparing actual mortality versus predicted mortality. Traditionally, mortality prediction models rely on a limited number of input variables and significant manual data entry and curation. Using automatically extracted electronic health record data may be a promising alternative. However, adequate data on comparative performance between these approaches is currently lacking.
Methods: The AmsterdamUMCdb intensive care database was used to construct a baseline APACHE IV in-hospital mortality model based on data typically available through manual data curation. Subsequently, new in-hospital mortality models were systematically developed and evaluated. New models differed with respect to the extent of automatic variable extraction, classification method, recalibration usage and the size of collection window.
Results: A total of 13 models were developed based on data from 5,077 admissions divided into a train (80%) and test (20%) cohort. Adding variables or extending collection windows only marginally improved discrimination and calibration. An XGBoost model using only automatically extracted variables, and therefore no acute or chronic diagnoses, was the best performing automated model with an AUC of 0.89 and a Brier score of 0.10.
Discussion: Performance of intensive care mortality prediction models based on manually curated versus automatically extracted electronic health record data is similar. Importantly, our results suggest that variables typically requiring manual curation, such as diagnosis at admission and comorbidities, may not be necessary for accurate mortality prediction. These proof-of-concept results require replication using multi-centre data.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)