Search

Abstract Background We aimed to build a common terminology in the domain of cervical cancer, named Cervical Cancer Common Terminology (CCCT), that will facilitate clinical data exchange, ensure quality of data and support large scale data analysis. Methods The standard concepts and relations of CCCT were collected from ICD-10-CM Chinese Version, ICD-9-PC Chinese Version, officially issued commonly used Chinese clinical terms, Chinese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer and Chinese medical book Lin Qiaozhi Gynecologic Oncology. 2062 cervical cancer electronic medical records (EMRs) from 16 hospitals, belong to different regions and hospital tiers, were collected for terminology enrichment and building common terms and relations. Concepts hierarchies, terms and relationships were built using Protégé. The performance of natural language processing results was evaluated by average precision, recall, and F1-score. The usability of CCCT were evaluated by terminology coverage. Results A total of 880 standard concepts, 1182 common terms, 16 relations and 6 attributes were defined in CCCT, which organized in 6 levels and 11 classes. Initial evaluation of the natural language processing results demonstrated average precision, recall, and F1-score percentages of 96%, 72.6%, and 88.5%. The average terminology coverage for three classes of terms, clinical manifestation, treatment, and pathology, were 87.22%, 92.63%, and 89.85%, respectively. Flexible Chinese expressions exist between regions, traditions, cultures, and language habits within the country, linguistic variations in different settings and diverse translation of introduced western language terms are the main reasons of uncovered terms. Conclusions Our study demonstrated the initial results of CCCT construction. This study is an ongoing work, with the update of medical knowledge, more standard clinical concepts will be added in, and with more EMRs to be collected and analyzed, the term coverage will be continuing improved. In the future, CCCT will effectively support clinical data analysis in large scale.

Abstract Background Analgesia and sedation therapy are commonly used for critically ill patients, especially mechanically ventilated patients. From the initial nonsedation programs to deep sedation and then to on-demand sedation, the understanding of sedation therapy continues to deepen. However, according to different patient’s condition, understanding the individual patient’s depth of sedation needs remains unclear. Methods The public open source critical illness database Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III was used in this study. Latent profile analysis was used as a clustering method to classify mechanically ventilated patients based on 36 variables. Principal component analysis dimensionality reduction was used to select the most influential variables. The ROC curve was used to evaluate the classification accuracy of the model. Results Based on 36 characteristic variables, we divided patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and sedation and analgesia into two categories with different mortality rates, then further reduced the dimensionality of the data and obtained the 9 variables that had the greatest impact on classification, most of which were ventilator parameters. According to the Richmond-ASS scores, the two phenotypes of patients had different degrees of sedation and analgesia, and the corresponding ventilator parameters were also significantly different. We divided the validation cohort into three different levels of sedation, revealing that patients with high ventilator conditions needed a deeper level of sedation, while patients with low ventilator conditions required reduction in the depth of sedation as soon as possible to promote recovery and avoid reinjury. Conclusion Through latent profile analysis and dimensionality reduction, we divided patients treated with mechanical ventilation and sedation and analgesia into two categories with different mortalities and obtained 9 variables that had the greatest impact on classification, which revealed that the depth of sedation was limited by the condition of the respiratory system.

BackgroundModern clinical care in intensive care units is full of rich data, and machine learning has great potential to support clinical decision-making. The development of intelligent machine learning–based clinical decision support systems is facing great opportunities and challenges. Clinical decision support systems may directly help clinicians accurately diagnose, predict outcomes, identify risk events, or decide treatments at the point of care. ObjectiveWe aimed to review the research and application of machine learning–enabled clinical decision support studies in intensive care units to help clinicians, researchers, developers, and policy makers better understand the advantages and limitations of machine learning–supported diagnosis, outcome prediction, risk event identification, and intensive care unit point-of-care recommendations. MethodsWe searched papers published in the PubMed database between January 1980 and October 2020. We defined selection criteria to identify papers that focused on machine learning–enabled clinical decision support studies in intensive care units and reviewed the following aspects: research topics, study cohorts, machine learning models, analysis variables, and evaluation metrics. ResultsA total of 643 papers were collected, and using our selection criteria, 97 studies were found. Studies were categorized into 4 topics—monitoring, detection, and diagnosis (13/97, 13.4%), early identification of clinical events (32/97, 33.0%), outcome prediction and prognosis assessment (46/97, 47.6%), and treatment decision (6/97, 6.2%). Of the 97 papers, 82 (84.5%) studies used data from adult patients, 9 (9.3%) studies used data from pediatric patients, and 6 (6.2%) studies used data from neonates. We found that 65 (67.0%) studies used data from a single center, and 32 (33.0%) studies used a multicenter data set; 88 (90.7%) studies used supervised learning, 3 (3.1%) studies used unsupervised learning, and 6 (6.2%) studies used reinforcement learning. Clinical variable categories, starting with the most frequently used, were demographic (n=74), laboratory values (n=59), vital signs (n=55), scores (n=48), ventilation parameters (n=43), comorbidities (n=27), medications (n=18), outcome (n=14), fluid balance (n=13), nonmedicine therapy (n=10), symptoms (n=7), and medical history (n=4). The most frequently adopted evaluation metrics for clinical data modeling studies included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (n=61), sensitivity (n=51), specificity (n=41), accuracy (n=29), and positive predictive value (n=23). ConclusionsEarly identification of clinical and outcome prediction and prognosis assessment contributed to approximately 80% of studies included in this review. Using new algorithms to solve intensive care unit clinical problems by developing reinforcement learning, active learning, and time-series analysis methods for clinical decision support will be greater development prospects in the future.