Analysis and Predictive Modeling of Traffic Incidents in Karachi using Machine Learning

Author(s):  
Syeda Batool ◽  
Muhammad Ali Ismail ◽  
Shabbar Ali
2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110193
Author(s):  
Kevin Y. Wang ◽  
Ijezie Ikwuezunma ◽  
Varun Puvanesarajah ◽  
Jacob Babu ◽  
Adam Margalit ◽  
...  

Study Design: Retrospective review. Objective: To use predictive modeling and machine learning to identify patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) following posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) for degenerative spinal pathology. Methods: Patients undergoing single-level PLF in the inpatient setting were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Our outcome measure of VTE included all patients who experienced a pulmonary embolism and/or deep venous thrombosis within 30-days of surgery. Two different methodologies were used to identify VTE risk: 1) a novel predictive model derived from multivariable logistic regression of significant risk factors, and 2) a tree-based extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm using preoperative variables. The methods were compared against legacy risk-stratification measures: ASA and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using area-under-the-curve (AUC) statistic. Results: 13, 500 patients who underwent single-level PLF met the study criteria. Of these, 0.95% had a VTE within 30-days of surgery. The 5 clinical variables found to be significant in the multivariable predictive model were: age > 65, obesity grade II or above, coronary artery disease, functional status, and prolonged operative time. The predictive model exhibited an AUC of 0.716, which was significantly higher than the AUCs of ASA and CCI (all, P < 0.001), and comparable to that of the XGBoost algorithm ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: Predictive analytics and machine learning can be leveraged to aid in identification of patients at risk of VTE following PLF. Surgeons and perioperative teams may find these tools useful to augment clinical decision making risk stratification tool.


JAMIA Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fengyi Tang ◽  
Cao Xiao ◽  
Fei Wang ◽  
Jiayu Zhou

Abstract Objective The growing availability of rich clinical data such as patients’ electronic health records provide great opportunities to address a broad range of real-world questions in medicine. At the same time, artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML)-based approaches have shown great premise on extracting insights from those data and helping with various clinical problems. The goal of this study is to conduct a systematic comparative study of different ML algorithms for several predictive modeling problems in urgent care. Design We assess the performance of 4 benchmark prediction tasks (eg mortality and prediction, differential diagnostics, and disease marker discovery) using medical histories, physiological time-series, and demographics data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database. Measurements For each given task, performance was estimated using standard measures including the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve, F-1 score, sensitivity, and specificity. Microaveraged AUC was used for multiclass classification models. Results and Discussion Our results suggest that recurrent neural networks show the most promise in mortality prediction where temporal patterns in physiologic features alone can capture in-hospital mortality risk (AUC &gt; 0.90). Temporal models did not provide additional benefit compared to deep models in differential diagnostics. When comparing the training–testing behaviors of readmission and mortality models, we illustrate that readmission risk may be independent of patient stability at discharge. We also introduce a multiclass prediction scheme for length of stay which preserves sensitivity and AUC with outliers of increasing duration despite decrease in sample size.


2019 ◽  
pp. 151-168
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Korfiatis ◽  
Timothy L. Kline ◽  
Zeynettin Akkus ◽  
Kenneth Philbrick ◽  
Bradley J. Erickson

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (suppl_6) ◽  
pp. vi179-vi179
Author(s):  
Aditya Khurana ◽  
Sara Ranjbar ◽  
Sandra Johnston ◽  
Leland Hu ◽  
Paula Whitmire ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Sandeep Madireddy ◽  
Prasanna Balaprakash ◽  
Philip Carns ◽  
Robert Latham ◽  
Robert Ross ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 148 ◽  
pp. 46-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan A. Moore ◽  
Esteban Rougier ◽  
Daniel O’Malley ◽  
Gowri Srinivasan ◽  
Abigail Hunter ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document