Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Peritonitis | Research

Decision curve analysis confirms higher clinical utility of multi-domain versus single-domain prediction models in patients with open abdomen treatment for peritonitis

Authors: Markus Huber, Patrick Schober, Sven Petersen, Markus M. Luedi

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Prediction modelling increasingly becomes an important risk assessment tool in perioperative systems approaches, e.g. in complex patients with open abdomen treatment for peritonitis. In this population, combining predictors from multiple medical domains (i.e. demographical, physiological and surgical variables) outperforms the prediction capabilities of single-domain prediction models. However, the benefit of these prediction models for clinical decision-making remains to be investigated. We therefore examined the clinical utility of mortality prediction models in patients suffering from peritonitis with a decision curve analysis.

Methods

In this secondary analysis of a large dataset, a traditional logistic regression approach, three machine learning methods and a stacked ensemble were employed to examine the predictive capability of demographic, physiological and surgical variables in predicting mortality under open abdomen treatment for peritonitis. Calibration was examined with calibration belts and predictive performance was assessed with the area both under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and under the precision recall curve (AUPRC) and with the Brier Score. Clinical utility of the prediction models was examined by means of a decision curve analysis (DCA) within a treatment threshold range of interest of 0–30%, where threshold probabilities are traditionally defined as the minimum probability of disease at which further intervention would be warranted.

Results

Machine learning methods supported available evidence of a higher prediction performance of a multi- versus single-domain prediction models. Interestingly, their prediction performance was similar to a logistic regression model. The DCA demonstrated that the overall net benefit is largest for a multi-domain prediction model and that this benefit is larger compared to the default “treat all” strategy only for treatment threshold probabilities above about 10%. Importantly, the net benefit for low threshold probabilities is dominated by physiological predictors: surgical and demographics predictors provide only secondary decision-analytic benefit.

Conclusions

DCA provides a valuable tool to compare single-domain and multi-domain prediction models and demonstrates overall higher decision-analytic value of the latter. Importantly, DCA provides a means to clinically differentiate the risks associated with each of these domains in more depth than with traditional performance metrics and highlighted the importance of physiological predictors for conservative intervention strategies for low treatment thresholds. Further, machine learning methods did not add significant benefit either in prediction performance or decision-analytic utility compared to logistic regression in these data.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Steyerberg EW, Moons KGM, van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model Research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001381.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Zimmerman JE, Bergner M, Bastos PG, et al. The APACHE III Prognostic System: risk prediction of Hospital Mortality for critically III hospitalized adults. Chest. 1991;100(6):1619–36.PubMedCrossRef Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Zimmerman JE, Bergner M, Bastos PG, et al. The APACHE III Prognostic System: risk prediction of Hospital Mortality for critically III hospitalized adults. Chest. 1991;100(6):1619–36.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Moreno RP, Metnitz PGH, Almeida E, Jordan B, Bauer P, Campos RA, et al. SAPS 3—From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(10):1345–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Moreno RP, Metnitz PGH, Almeida E, Jordan B, Bauer P, Campos RA, et al. SAPS 3—From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(10):1345–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Petersen S, Huber M, Storni F, Puhl G, Deder A, Prause A et al. Outcome in patients with open abdomen treatment for peritonitis: a multidomain approach outperforms single domain predictions.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2021. Petersen S, Huber M, Storni F, Puhl G, Deder A, Prause A et al. Outcome in patients with open abdomen treatment for peritonitis: a multidomain approach outperforms single domain predictions.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing. 2021.
6.
go back to reference Alqarni A, Kantor E, Grall N, Tanaka S, Zappella N, Godement M, et al. Clinical characteristics and prognosis of bacteraemia during postoperative intra-abdominal infections. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):175.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Alqarni A, Kantor E, Grall N, Tanaka S, Zappella N, Godement M, et al. Clinical characteristics and prognosis of bacteraemia during postoperative intra-abdominal infections. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):175.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Montravers P, Augustin P, Grall N, Desmard M, Allou N, Marmuse J-P, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of anti-infective de-escalation during health care-associated intra-abdominal infections. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Montravers P, Augustin P, Grall N, Desmard M, Allou N, Marmuse J-P, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of anti-infective de-escalation during health care-associated intra-abdominal infections. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Collins GS, de Groot JA, Dutton S, Omar O, Shanyinde M, Tajar A, et al. External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Collins GS, de Groot JA, Dutton S, Omar O, Shanyinde M, Tajar A, et al. External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW, Bossuyt P, et al. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):230.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW, Bossuyt P, et al. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):230.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Finazzi S, Poole D, Luciani D, Cogo PE, Bertolini G. Calibration Belt for Quality-of-Care Assessment based on dichotomous outcomes. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(2):e16110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Finazzi S, Poole D, Luciani D, Cogo PE, Bertolini G. Calibration Belt for Quality-of-Care Assessment based on dichotomous outcomes. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(2):e16110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Vetter TR, Schober P, Mascha EJ. Diagnostic testing and Decision-Making: beauty is not just in the Eye of the beholder. Anesth Analgesia. 2018;127(4):1085–91.CrossRef Vetter TR, Schober P, Mascha EJ. Diagnostic testing and Decision-Making: beauty is not just in the Eye of the beholder. Anesth Analgesia. 2018;127(4):1085–91.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Branco P, Torgo L, Ribeiro RP. A Survey of Predictive modeling on Imbalanced Domains. ACM Comput Surv. 2016;49(2):Article31. Branco P, Torgo L, Ribeiro RP. A Survey of Predictive modeling on Imbalanced Domains. ACM Comput Surv. 2016;49(2):Article31.
13.
go back to reference He H, Garcia EA. Learning from Imbalanced Data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 2009;21(9):1263–84.CrossRef He H, Garcia EA. Learning from Imbalanced Data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 2009;21(9):1263–84.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Saito T, Rehmsmeier M. The Precision-Recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Datasets. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0118432.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Saito T, Rehmsmeier M. The Precision-Recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Datasets. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0118432.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S. Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(4):932–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S. Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(4):932–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Sadatsafavi M, Adibi A, Puhan M, Gershon A, Aaron SD, Sin DD. Moving beyond AUC: decision curve analysis for quantifying net benefit of risk prediction models. Eur Respir J. 2021;58(5):2101186.PubMedCrossRef Sadatsafavi M, Adibi A, Puhan M, Gershon A, Aaron SD, Sin DD. Moving beyond AUC: decision curve analysis for quantifying net benefit of risk prediction models. Eur Respir J. 2021;58(5):2101186.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Pencina MJ, Lingsma HF, Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Van Calster B. Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012;42(2):216–28.PubMedCrossRef Steyerberg EW, Pencina MJ, Lingsma HF, Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Van Calster B. Assessing the incremental value of diagnostic and prognostic markers: a review and illustration. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012;42(2):216–28.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Van Calster B, Wynants L, Verbeek JFM, Verbakel JY, Christodoulou E, Vickers AJ, et al. Reporting and interpreting decision curve analysis: a guide for investigators. Eur Urol. 2018;74(6):796–804.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Van Calster B, Wynants L, Verbeek JFM, Verbakel JY, Christodoulou E, Vickers AJ, et al. Reporting and interpreting decision curve analysis: a guide for investigators. Eur Urol. 2018;74(6):796–804.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Vickers AJ, Woo S. Decision curve analysis in the evaluation of radiology research. Eur Radiol. 2022;32(9):5787–9.PubMedCrossRef Vickers AJ, Woo S. Decision curve analysis in the evaluation of radiology research. Eur Radiol. 2022;32(9):5787–9.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Secin FP, Bianco FJ, Cronin A, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Guillonneau B, et al. Is it necessary to remove the seminal vesicles completely at Radical Prostatectomy? Decision curve analysis of European Society of Urologic Oncology Criteria. J Urol. 2009;181(2):609–14.PubMedCrossRef Secin FP, Bianco FJ, Cronin A, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Guillonneau B, et al. Is it necessary to remove the seminal vesicles completely at Radical Prostatectomy? Decision curve analysis of European Society of Urologic Oncology Criteria. J Urol. 2009;181(2):609–14.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Slankamenac K, Beck-Schimmer B, Breitenstein S, Puhan MA, Clavien P-A. Novel prediction score including pre- and intraoperative parameters best predicts acute kidney Injury after liver surgery. World J Surg. 2013;37(11):2618–28.PubMedCrossRef Slankamenac K, Beck-Schimmer B, Breitenstein S, Puhan MA, Clavien P-A. Novel prediction score including pre- and intraoperative parameters best predicts acute kidney Injury after liver surgery. World J Surg. 2013;37(11):2618–28.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Baart AM, de Kort WLAM, Moons KGM, Atsma F, Vergouwe Y. Zinc protoporphyrin levels have added value in the prediction of low hemoglobin deferral in whole blood donors. Transfusion. 2013;53(8):1661–9.PubMedCrossRef Baart AM, de Kort WLAM, Moons KGM, Atsma F, Vergouwe Y. Zinc protoporphyrin levels have added value in the prediction of low hemoglobin deferral in whole blood donors. Transfusion. 2013;53(8):1661–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Christodoulou E, Ma J, Collins GS, Steyerberg EW, Verbakel JY, Van Calster B. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;110:12–22.PubMedCrossRef Christodoulou E, Ma J, Collins GS, Steyerberg EW, Verbakel JY, Van Calster B. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;110:12–22.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Laan MJvd, Polley EC, Hubbard AE. Super Learner.Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology. 2007;6(1). Laan MJvd, Polley EC, Hubbard AE. Super Learner.Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology. 2007;6(1).
27.
go back to reference Rose S. Mortality risk score prediction in an Elderly Population using machine learning. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177(5):443–52.PubMedCrossRef Rose S. Mortality risk score prediction in an Elderly Population using machine learning. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177(5):443–52.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Torquati M, Mendis M, Xu H, Myneni AA, Noyes K, Hoffman AB, et al. Using the Super Learner algorithm to predict risk of 30-day readmission after bariatric surgery in the United States. Surgery. 2022;171(3):621–7.PubMedCrossRef Torquati M, Mendis M, Xu H, Myneni AA, Noyes K, Hoffman AB, et al. Using the Super Learner algorithm to predict risk of 30-day readmission after bariatric surgery in the United States. Surgery. 2022;171(3):621–7.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Ehwerhemuepha L, Danioko S, Verma S, Marano R, Feaster W, Taraman S, et al. A super learner ensemble of 14 statistical learning models for predicting COVID-19 severity among patients with cardiovascular conditions. Intelligence-Based Med. 2021;5:100030.CrossRef Ehwerhemuepha L, Danioko S, Verma S, Marano R, Feaster W, Taraman S, et al. A super learner ensemble of 14 statistical learning models for predicting COVID-19 severity among patients with cardiovascular conditions. Intelligence-Based Med. 2021;5:100030.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Pirracchio R, Petersen ML, Carone M, Rigon MR, Chevret S, van der Laan MJ. Mortality prediction in intensive care units with the Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA): a population-based study. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2015;3(1):42–52.PubMedCrossRef Pirracchio R, Petersen ML, Carone M, Rigon MR, Chevret S, van der Laan MJ. Mortality prediction in intensive care units with the Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA): a population-based study. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2015;3(1):42–52.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Vickers AJ, van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis. Diagn Prognostic Res. 2019;3(1):18.CrossRef Vickers AJ, van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis. Diagn Prognostic Res. 2019;3(1):18.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ. 2016;352:i6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ. 2016;352:i6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Stevens LM, Mortazavi BJ, Deo RC, Curtis L, Kao DP. Recommendations for reporting machine learning analyses in Clinical Research. Circulation: Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13(10):e006556. Stevens LM, Mortazavi BJ, Deo RC, Curtis L, Kao DP. Recommendations for reporting machine learning analyses in Clinical Research. Circulation: Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13(10):e006556.
35.
go back to reference Nattino G, Finazzi S, Bertolini G. A new calibration test and a reappraisal of the calibration belt for the assessment of prediction models based on dichotomous outcomes. Stat Med. 2014;33(14):2390–407.PubMedCrossRef Nattino G, Finazzi S, Bertolini G. A new calibration test and a reappraisal of the calibration belt for the assessment of prediction models based on dichotomous outcomes. Stat Med. 2014;33(14):2390–407.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Brier GW. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Mon Weather Rev. 1950;78:1–3.CrossRef Brier GW. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Mon Weather Rev. 1950;78:1–3.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Fernández A, García S, Galar M, Prati RC, Krawczyk B, Herrera F. Performance measures. Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 47–61. Fernández A, García S, Galar M, Prati RC, Krawczyk B, Herrera F. Performance measures. Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 47–61.
38.
go back to reference Kerr KF, Brown MD, Zhu K, Janes H. Assessing the clinical impact of risk prediction models with decision curves: Guidance for correct interpretation and appropriate use. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2534–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kerr KF, Brown MD, Zhu K, Janes H. Assessing the clinical impact of risk prediction models with decision curves: Guidance for correct interpretation and appropriate use. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2534–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Rousson V, Zumbrunn T. Decision curve analysis revisited: overall net benefit, relationships to ROC curve analysis, and application to case-control studies. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2011;11(1):45.CrossRef Rousson V, Zumbrunn T. Decision curve analysis revisited: overall net benefit, relationships to ROC curve analysis, and application to case-control studies. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2011;11(1):45.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Schober P, Vetter TR. Missing Data and Imputation Methods. Anesth Analgesia. 2020;131(5):1419–20.CrossRef Schober P, Vetter TR. Missing Data and Imputation Methods. Anesth Analgesia. 2020;131(5):1419–20.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Kuhn M. caret: Classification and Regression Training. 2020. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caret Kuhn M. caret: Classification and Regression Training. 2020. https://​CRAN.​R-project.​org/​package=​caret
42.
go back to reference Sjoberg DD. dcurves: Decision Curve Analysis for Model Evaluation. 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dcurves Sjoberg DD. dcurves: Decision Curve Analysis for Model Evaluation. 2022. https://​CRAN.​R-project.​org/​package=​dcurves
43.
go back to reference R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020. https://www.R-project.org/. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020. https://​www.​R-project.​org/​.​
44.
go back to reference Austin PC, Harrell FE, Steyerberg EW. Predictive performance of machine and statistical learning methods: impact of data-generating processes on external validity in the “large N, small p” setting. Stat Methods Med Res. 2021;30(6):1465–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Austin PC, Harrell FE, Steyerberg EW. Predictive performance of machine and statistical learning methods: impact of data-generating processes on external validity in the “large N, small p” setting. Stat Methods Med Res. 2021;30(6):1465–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Ren Y, Zhang L, Suganthan PN. Ensemble classification and regression-recent developments, applications and future directions. IEEE Comput Intell Mag. 2016;11(1):41–53.CrossRef Ren Y, Zhang L, Suganthan PN. Ensemble classification and regression-recent developments, applications and future directions. IEEE Comput Intell Mag. 2016;11(1):41–53.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Polikar R. Ensemble based systems in decision making. IEEE Circuits Syst Mag. 2006;6(3):21–45.CrossRef Polikar R. Ensemble based systems in decision making. IEEE Circuits Syst Mag. 2006;6(3):21–45.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Sun Z, Dong W, Shi H, Ma H, Cheng L, Huang Z. Comparing Machine Learning Models and Statistical Models for Predicting Heart Failure Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022;9. Sun Z, Dong W, Shi H, Ma H, Cheng L, Huang Z. Comparing Machine Learning Models and Statistical Models for Predicting Heart Failure Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022;9.
48.
go back to reference Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(29):1925–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(29):1925–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Ramspek CL, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, van Diepen M. External validation of prognostic models: what, why, how, when and where? Clin Kidney J. 2020;14(1):49–58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ramspek CL, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, van Diepen M. External validation of prognostic models: what, why, how, when and where? Clin Kidney J. 2020;14(1):49–58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, Harrell FE, Martin GP, Reitsma JB, et al. Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ. 2020;368:m441.PubMedCrossRef Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, Harrell FE, Martin GP, Reitsma JB, et al. Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ. 2020;368:m441.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Decision curve analysis confirms higher clinical utility of multi-domain versus single-domain prediction models in patients with open abdomen treatment for peritonitis
Authors
Markus Huber
Patrick Schober
Sven Petersen
Markus M. Luedi
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Peritonitis
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02156-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023 Go to the issue