Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 19;9(5):e17886.
doi: 10.2196/17886.

Predicting Prolonged Length of Hospital Stay for Peritoneal Dialysis-Treated Patients Using Stacked Generalization: Model Development and Validation Study

Affiliations

Predicting Prolonged Length of Hospital Stay for Peritoneal Dialysis-Treated Patients Using Stacked Generalization: Model Development and Validation Study

Guilan Kong et al. JMIR Med Inform. .

Abstract

Background: The increasing number of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) and their consistently high rate of hospital admissions have placed a large burden on the health care system. Early clinical interventions and optimal management of patients at a high risk of prolonged length of stay (pLOS) may help improve the medical efficiency and prognosis of PD-treated patients. If timely clinical interventions are not provided, patients at a high risk of pLOS may face a poor prognosis and high medical expenses, which will also be a burden on hospitals. Therefore, physicians need an effective pLOS prediction model for PD-treated patients.

Objective: This study aimed to develop an optimal data-driven model for predicting the pLOS risk of PD-treated patients using basic admission data.

Methods: Patient data collected using the Hospital Quality Monitoring System (HQMS) in China were used to develop pLOS prediction models. A stacking model was constructed with support vector machine, random forest (RF), and K-nearest neighbor algorithms as its base models and traditional logistic regression (LR) as its meta-model. The meta-model used the outputs of all 3 base models as input and generated the output of the stacking model. Another LR-based pLOS prediction model was built as the benchmark model. The prediction performance of the stacking model was compared with that of its base models and the benchmark model. Five-fold cross-validation was employed to develop and validate the models. Performance measures included the Brier score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), estimated calibration index (ECI), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and geometric mean (Gm). In addition, a calibration plot was employed to visually demonstrate the calibration power of each model.

Results: The final cohort extracted from the HQMS database consisted of 23,992 eligible PD-treated patients, among whom 30.3% had a pLOS (ie, longer than the average LOS, which was 16 days in our study). Among the models, the stacking model achieved the best calibration (ECI 8.691), balanced accuracy (Gm 0.690), accuracy (0.695), and specificity (0.701). Meanwhile, the stacking and RF models had the best overall performance (Brier score 0.174 for both) and discrimination (AUROC 0.757 for the stacking model and 0.756 for the RF model). Compared with the benchmark LR model, the stacking model was superior in all performance measures except sensitivity, but there was no significant difference in sensitivity between the 2 models. The 2-sided t tests revealed significant performance differences between the stacking and LR models in overall performance, discrimination, calibration, balanced accuracy, and accuracy.

Conclusions: This study is the first to develop data-driven pLOS prediction models for PD-treated patients using basic admission data from a national database. The results indicate the feasibility of utilizing a stacking-based pLOS prediction model for PD-treated patients. The pLOS prediction tools developed in this study have the potential to assist clinicians in identifying patients at a high risk of pLOS and to allocate resources optimally for PD-treated patients.

Keywords: clinical decision support; machine learning; peritoneal dialysis; prediction model; prolonged length of stay.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Stacked generalization, where Predictionj denotes the prediction outcome produced by the model (Modelj) for a new case.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Histogram of length of stay (LOS) distribution of peritoneal dialysis–treated patients.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Calibration plots of the 5 models. KNN: K-nearest neighbor; LR: logistic regression; RF: random forest; SVM: support vector machine.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Saran Rajiv, Robinson Bruce, Abbott Kevin C, Agodoa Lawrence Y C, Bragg-Gresham Jennifer, Balkrishnan Rajesh, Bhave Nicole, Dietrich Xue, Ding Zhechen, Eggers Paul W, Gaipov Abduzhappar, Gillen Daniel, Gipson Debbie, Gu Haoyu, Guro Paula, Haggerty Diana, Han Yun, He Kevin, Herman William, Heung Michael, Hirth Richard A, Hsiung Jui-Ting, Hutton David, Inoue Aya, Jacobsen Steven J, Jin Yan, Kalantar-Zadeh Kamyar, Kapke Alissa, Kleine Carola-Ellen, Kovesdy Csaba P, Krueter William, Kurtz Vivian, Li Yiting, Liu Sai, Marroquin Maria V, McCullough Keith, Molnar Miklos Z, Modi Zubin, Montez-Rath Maria, Moradi Hamid, Morgenstern Hal, Mukhopadhyay Purna, Nallamothu Brahmajee, Nguyen Danh V, Norris Keith C, O'Hare Ann M, Obi Yoshitsugu, Park Christina, Pearson Jeffrey, Pisoni Ronald, Potukuchi Praveen K, Repeck Kaitlyn, Rhee Connie M, Schaubel Douglas E, Schrager Jillian, Selewski David T, Shamraj Ruth, Shaw Sally F, Shi Jiaxiao M, Shieu Monica, Sim John J, Soohoo Melissa, Steffick Diane, Streja Elani, Sumida Keiichi, Kurella Tamura Manjula, Tilea Anca, Turf Megan, Wang Dongyu, Weng Wenjing, Woodside Kenneth J, Wyncott April, Xiang Jie, Xin Xin, Yin Maggie, You Amy S, Zhang Xiaosong, Zhou Hui, Shahinian Vahakn. US Renal Data System 2018 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019 Mar;73(3 Suppl 1):A7–A8. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.01.001. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30798791 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, Zhao MH, Lv J, Garg AX, Knight J, Rodgers A, Gallagher M, Kotwal S, Cass A, Perkovic V. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015 May 16;385(9981):1975–82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61601-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang L, Zuo L. Current burden of end-stage kidney disease and its future trend in China. Clin Nephrol. 2016;86 (2016)(13):27–28. doi: 10.5414/CNP86S104. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang L, Zhao M, Zuo L, Wang Y, Yu F, Zhang H, Wang H, CK-NET Work Group China Kidney Disease Network (CK-NET) 2015 Annual Data Report. Kidney Int Suppl (2011) 2019 Mar;9(1):e1–e81. doi: 10.1016/j.kisu.2018.11.001. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30828481 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chan KE, Lazarus JM, Wingard RL, Hakim RM. Association between repeat hospitalization and early intervention in dialysis patients following hospital discharge. Kidney Int. 2009 Aug;76(3):331–41. doi: 10.1038/ki.2009.199. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0085-2538(15)53967-7 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources