Abstract
Pneumonia is the top communicable cause of death worldwide. Accurate prognostication of patient severity with Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) allows better patient care and hospital management. The Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) was developed in 1997 as a tool to guide clinical practice by stratifying the severity of patients with CAP. While the PSI has been evaluated against other clinical stratification tools, it has not been evaluated against multiple classic machine learning classifiers in various metrics over large sample size. In this paper, we evaluated and compared the prediction performance of nine classic machine learning classifiers with PSI over 34720 adult (age 18+) patient records collected from 749 hospitals from 2009 to 2018 in the United States on Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Area Under the Curve (AUC) and Average Precision (Precision-Recall AUC). Machine learning classifiers, such as Random Forest, provided a significant improvement (∼29% in PR AUC and ∼5% in ROC AUC) compared to PSI and required only 7 input values (compared to 20 parameters used in PSI). There were also statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between Random Forest and PSI among various races/ethnicities. Because of its ease of use, PSI remains a very strong clinical decision tool, but machine learning classifiers can provide better prediction accuracy performance. Comparing prediction performance across multiple metrics such as PR AUC, instead of ROC AUC alone can provide additional insight.
Key Messages This work compared the prognostication accuracy performance of patient severity with Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) between Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) and nine machine learning classifiers and found machine learning classifiers provided a significant improvement.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of Purdue University gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering at Purdue University
