PreprintCited by 3Machine Learning in HealthcareAcute Kidney Injury ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Developing Deep Learning Continuous Risk Models for Early Adverse Event Prediction in Electronic Health Records: an AKI Case Study

Open access
Tomašev, Nenad, Glorot, Xavier, Rae, Jack W., Zielinski, Michal, Askham, Harry, Saraiva, Andre, Mottram, Anne, Meyer, Clemens +19 more·2019·Research Square

Abstract

Early detection of patient deterioration is key to unlocking the potential for targeted preventative care and improving patient outcomes. This protocol describes a workflow for developing deep learning continuous risk models for early prediction of future acute adverse events from electronic health records (EHR), taking the prediction of the risk of future acute kidney injury (AKI) as an exemplar. The protocol consists of 34 steps grouped into the following stages: formal problem definition, data processing, model architecture selection, risk calibration and uncertainty, and evaluating model generalisability. For the protocol to be applicable to modelling the future risk of a particular condition, the problem formulation should be clinically and physiologically plausible and there needs to be sufficient associated predictive signal in routinely collected EHR data. Prospective validation is key in evaluating whether retrospective models developed by following the proposed protocol are clinically applicable and useful.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21203/rs.2.10083/v1

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. M. Komorowski, L. A. Celi, O. Badawi, A. Gordon, and A. Faisal, "The arti cial intelligence clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care," Nature Medicine, vol. 24, pp. 1716-1720, 2018.
  2. J. Futoma, S. Hariharan, and K. A. Heller, "Learning to detect sepsis with a multitask gaussian process RNN classi er," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (D.
  3. P. Nguyen, T. Tran, N. Wickramasinghe, and S. Venkatesh, "Deepr: A convolutional net for medical records," IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 22-30, 2017.
  4. R. M. Cronin, J. P. VanHouten, E. D. Siew, S. K. Eden, S. D. Fihn, C. D. Nielson, J. F. Peterson, C. R. Baker, T. A. Ikizler, T. Speroff, and M. E. Matheny, "National Veterans Health Administration inpatient risk strati cation models for hospital acquired acute kidney injury," Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1054-1071, 2015.
  5. M. Singer, C. S. Deutschman, C. W. Seymour, M. Shankar-Hari, D. Annane, M. Bauer, R. Bellomo, G. R. Bernard, J.-D. Chiche, C. M. Coopersmith,et al., "The third international consensus de nitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)," Jama, vol. 315, no. 8, pp. 801-810, 2016.
  6. Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, G. B. Orr, and K.-R. Müller, "E cient backprop," in Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, This Book is an Outgrowth of a 1996 NIPS Workshop, (London, UK), pp. 9-50, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
  7. X. Glorot and Y. Bengio, "Understanding the di culty of training deep feed forward neural networks," in International Conference on Arti cial Intelligence and Statistics (Y. W. Teh and M. Titterington, eds.), vol. 9, pp. 249-256, 2010.
  8. B. Zadrozny and C. Elkan, "Transforming classi er scores into accurate multiclass probability estimates," in Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 694-699, ACM, 2002.
  9. G. W. Brier, "Veri cation of forecasts expressed in terms of probability," Monthly Weather Review, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 1-3, 1950.
  10. E. J. Topol, "High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and arti cial intelligence," Nat. Med., vol. 25, pp. 44-56, Jan 2019.
  11. J. Collins, J. Sohl-Dickstein, and D. Sussillo, "Capacity and learnability in recurrent neural networks," International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017.
  12. S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, "Long short-term memory," Neural Computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735-1780, 1997.
  13. X. Glorot, A. Bordes, and Y. Bengio, "Deep sparse recti er neural networks," in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Arti cial Intelligence and Statistics (G. Gordon, D. Dunson, and M. Dudík, eds.), vol. 15, pp. 315-323, PMLR, 2011.
  14. A. L. Maas, A. Y. Hannun, and A. Y. Ng, "Recti er nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (S. Dasgupta and D. McAllester, eds.), vol. 30, p. 3, 2013.
  15. P. Ramachandran, B. Zoph, and Q. V. Le, "Searching for activation functions," International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
  16. G. Klambauer, T. Unterthiner, A. Mayr, and S. Hochreiter, "Self-normalizing neural networks," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (I.
  17. Guyon, U. Luxburg,1000S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, eds.), vol. 30, pp. 971-980, 2017.
  18. M. Basirat and P. M. Roth, "The quest for the golden activation function," arXiv Preprint arXiv:1808.00783, 2018. · arXiv

Authors
Tomašev, N., Glorot, X., Rae, J. W., Zielinski, M., Askham, H., Saraiva, A., Mottram, A., Meyer, C., Ravuri, S., Protsyuk, I., Connell, A., Hughes, C. O., Karthikesalingam, A., Cornebise, J., Montgomery, H., Rees, G., Laing, C., Baker, C. R., Peterson, K., Reeves, R., Hassabis, D., King, D., Suleyman, M., Back, T., Nielson, C., Ledsam, J. R., & Mohamed, S.
Affiliations
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University College Hospital (GB)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System (US)
Venue
Research Square
Published
2019-07-31
OpenAlex
W2964389652
Cited by
3
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • DeepMind
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University College London
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
acute kidney injury, deep learning, electronic health records, clinical deterioration, risk calibration, uncertainty estimation, model generalization, prospective validation, clinical risk prediction

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