Large and complex data sets are increasingly available for research in critical care. To analyze these data, researchers use techniques commonly referred to as statistical learning or machine... Show moreLarge and complex data sets are increasingly available for research in critical care. To analyze these data, researchers use techniques commonly referred to as statistical learning or machine learning (ML). The latter is known for large successes in the field of diagnostics, for example, by identification of radiological anomalies. In other research areas, such as clustering and prediction studies, there is more discussion regarding the benefit and efficiency of ML techniques compared with statistical learning. In this viewpoint, we aim to explain commonly used statistical learning and ML techniques and provide guidance for responsible use in the case of clustering and prediction questions in critical care. Clustering studies have been increasingly popular in critical care research, aiming to inform how patients can be characterized, classified, or treated differently. An important challenge for clustering studies is to ensure and assess generalizability. This limits the application of findings in these studies toward individual patients. In the case of predictive questions, there is much discussion as to what algorithm should be used to most accurately predict outcome. Aspects that determine usefulness of ML, compared with statistical techniques, include the volume of the data, the dimensionality of the preferred model, and the extent of missing data. There are areas in which modern ML methods may be preferred. However, efforts should be made to implement statistical frameworks (e.g., for dealing with missing data or measurement error, both omnipresent in clinical data) in ML methods. To conclude, there are important opportunities but also pitfalls to consider when performing clustering or predictive studies with ML techniques. We advocate careful valuation of new data-driven findings. More interaction is needed between the engineer mindset of experts in ML methods, the insight in bias of epidemiologists, and the probabilistic thinking of statisticians to extract as much information and knowledge from data as possible, while avoiding harm. Show less
Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury.Study Design and Setting: We... Show moreObjective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury.Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale <13, n = 1,554). Both calibration (calibration slope/intercept) and discrimination (area under the curve) was quantified.Results: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study.Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
