Cited by 45Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Predicting Complications in Critical Care Using Heterogeneous Clinical Data

Open access
Huddar, Vijay, Desiraju, Bapu Koundinya, Rajan, Vaibhav, Bhattacharya, Sakyajit, Roy, Shourya, Reddy, Chandan K.·2016·IEEE Access

Abstract

Patients in hospitals, particularly in critical care, are susceptible to many complications affecting morbidity and mortality. Digitized clinical data in electronic medical records can be effectively used to develop machine learning models to identify patients at risk of complications early and provide prioritized care to prevent complications. However, clinical data from heterogeneous sources within hospitals pose significant modeling challenges. In particular, unstructured clinical notes are a valuable source of information containing regular assessments of the patient's condition but contain inconsistent abbreviations and lack the structure of formal documents. Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we present a new preprocessing technique for extracting features from informal clinical notes that can be used in a classification model to identify patients at risk of developing complications. Second, we explore the use of collective matrix factorization, a multi-view learning technique, to model heterogeneous clinical data-text-based features in combination with other measurements, such as clinical investigations, comorbidites, and demographic data. We present a detailed case study on postoperative respiratory failure using more than 700 patient records from the MIMIC II database. Our experiments demonstrate the efficacy of our preprocessing technique in extracting discriminatory features from clinical notes as well as the benefits of multi-view learning to combine clinical measurements with text data for predicting complications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2016.2618775

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Perotte et al. model was not compared with conventional simpler machine learning classifiers, and collective matrix factorization becomes inherently difficult to interpret.

    “For example, the Perotte et al.99 model was not compared with conventional simpler machine learning classifiers, and collective matrix factorization becomes inherently difficult to interpret79.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huddar, V., Desiraju, B. K., Rajan, V., Bhattacharya, S., Roy, S., & Reddy, C. K.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (IN)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2016
Volume
4
Pages
7988-8001
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2537621452
Cited by
45
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Science Foundation (IIS-1231742, IIS-1527827)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
complication prediction, intensive care, electronic health records, clinical notes, collective matrix factorization, multi-view learning, heterogeneous clinical data, postoperative respiratory failure, MIMIC-II, risk stratification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review