PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Sikora, Andrea
AU  - Zhang, Tianyi
AU  - Murphy, David J.
AU  - Smith, Susan E.
AU  - Murray, Brian
AU  - Kamaleswaran, Rishikesan
AU  - Chen, Xianyan
AU  - Buckley, Mitchell S.
AU  - Rowe, Sandra
AU  - Devlin, John W.
AU - the MRC-ICU Investigator Team
TI  - Machine learning vs. traditional regression analysis for fluid overload prediction in the ICU
AID  - 10.1101/2023.06.16.23291493
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.06.16.23291493
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/19/2023.06.16.23291493.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/19/2023.06.16.23291493.full
AB  - Background Fluid overload, while common in the ICU and associated with serious sequelae, is hard to predict and may be influenced by ICU medication use. Machine learning (ML) approaches may offer advantages over traditional regression techniques to predict it. We compared the ability of traditional regression techniques and different ML-based modeling approaches to identify clinically meaningful fluid overload predictors.Methods This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted to an ICU ≥ 72 hours between 10/1/2015 and 10/31/2020 with available fluid balance data. Models to predict fluid overload (a positive fluid balance ≥10% of the admission body weight) in the 48-72 hours after ICU admission were created. Potential patient and medication fluid overload predictor variables (n=28) were collected at either baseline or 24 hours after ICU admission. The optimal traditional logistic regression model was created using backward selection. Supervised, classification-based ML models were trained and optimized, including a meta-modeling approach. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared between the traditional and ML fluid prediction models.Results A total of 49 of the 391 (12.5%) patients developed fluid overload. Among the ML models, the XGBoost model had the highest performance (AUROC 0.78, PPV 0.27, NPV 0.94) for fluid overload prediction. The XGBoost model performed similarly to the final traditional logistic regression model (AUROC 0.70; PPV 0.20, NPV 0.94). Feature importance analysis revealed severity of illness scores and medication-related data were the most important predictors of fluid overload.Conclusion In the context of our study, ML and traditional models appear to perform similarly to predict fluid overload in the ICU. Baseline severity of illness and ICU medication regimen complexity are important predictors of fluid overload.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementAHRQAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The protocol for this study was approved with waivers of informed consent and HIPAA authorization granted by UNHCS Institutional Review Board (approval number: (Project00001541); approval date: October 2021).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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors