BMC Endocrine Disorders (Oct 2023)

Using artificial intelligence to predict adverse outcomes in emergency department patients with hyperglycemic crises in real time

  • Chin-Chuan Hsu,
  • Yuan Kao,
  • Chien-Chin Hsu,
  • Chia-Jung Chen,
  • Shu-Lien Hsu,
  • Tzu-Lan Liu,
  • Hung-Jung Lin,
  • Jhi-Joung Wang,
  • Chung-Feng Liu,
  • Chien-Cheng Huang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-023-01437-9
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 14

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Hyperglycemic crises are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have proposed methods to predict adverse outcomes of patients in hyperglycemic crises; however, artificial intelligence (AI) has never been used to predict adverse outcomes. We implemented an AI model integrated with the hospital information system (HIS) to clarify whether AI could predict adverse outcomes. Methods We included 2,666 patients with hyperglycemic crises from emergency departments (ED) between 2009 and 2018. The patients were randomized into a 70%/30% split for AI model training and testing. Twenty-two feature variables from the electronic medical records were collected. The performance of the multilayer perceptron (MLP), logistic regression, random forest, Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), support vector machine (SVM), and K-nearest neighbor (KNN) algorithms was compared. We selected the best algorithm to construct an AI model to predict sepsis or septic shock, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality within 1 month. The outcomes between the non-AI and AI groups were compared after implementing the HIS and predicting the hyperglycemic crisis death (PHD) score. Results The MLP had the best performance in predicting the three adverse outcomes, compared with the random forest, logistic regression, SVM, KNN, and LightGBM models. The areas under the curves (AUCs) using the MLP model were 0.852 for sepsis or septic shock, 0.743 for ICU admission, and 0.796 for all-cause mortality. Furthermore, we integrated the AI predictive model with the HIS to assist decision making in real time. No significant differences in ICU admission or all-cause mortality were detected between the non-AI and AI groups. The AI model performed better than the PHD score for predicting all-cause mortality (AUC 0.796 vs. 0.693). Conclusions A real-time AI predictive model is a promising method for predicting adverse outcomes in ED patients with hyperglycemic crises. Further studies recruiting more patients are warranted.

Keywords