论文标题
目标试验因果框架和机器学习模型的联合应用以优化抗生素治疗:急性细菌皮肤和皮肤结构感染的用例
Joint Application of the Target Trial Causal Framework and Machine Learning Modeling to Optimize Antibiotic Therapy: Use Case on Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections due to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
论文作者
论文摘要
细菌感染负责全球高死亡率。感染潜在的抗菌素耐药性和多方面患者的临床状况可能会妨碍正确选择抗生素治疗。随机临床试验提供了平均治疗效果估计值,但对于治疗选择的风险分层和优化,即个性化治疗效果(ITE)并不理想。在这里,我们利用了从美国南部学术诊所收集的大规模电子健康记录数据,模仿临床试验,即“目标试验”,并开发出因甲基甲基蛋白 - 抗蛋白 - 固定蛋白葡萄球菌的急性细菌性皮肤和皮肤结构感染(ABSSS)的诊断为急性细菌性皮肤和皮肤结构感染(ABSSS)的机器学习模型。 ABSSI-MRSA是一个充满挑战的疾病,治疗选择减少 - 万古霉素是首选的选择,但它具有不可忽略的副作用。首先,我们使用倾向评分匹配来模仿试验并创建随机的治疗(万古霉素与其他抗生素)数据集。接下来,我们使用此数据来训练各种机器学习方法(包括增强/Lasso Logistic回归,支持向量机和随机森林),并通过引导验证选择接收器特征(AUC)下的面积最佳模型。最后,我们使用模型来计算ITE并通过治疗改变可能避免死亡。排出外测试表明,SVM和RF是最准确的,AUC分别为81%和78%,但BLR/Lasso不远(76%)。通过使用BLR/Lasso计算反事实,万古霉素增加了死亡的风险,但显示出很大的变化(优势比1.2,95%范围0.4-3.8),对结果概率的贡献是适度的。取而代之的是,RF在ITE中表现出更大的变化,表明更复杂的治疗异质性。
Bacterial infections are responsible for high mortality worldwide. Antimicrobial resistance underlying the infection, and multifaceted patient's clinical status can hamper the correct choice of antibiotic treatment. Randomized clinical trials provide average treatment effect estimates but are not ideal for risk stratification and optimization of therapeutic choice, i.e., individualized treatment effects (ITE). Here, we leverage large-scale electronic health record data, collected from Southern US academic clinics, to emulate a clinical trial, i.e., 'target trial', and develop a machine learning model of mortality prediction and ITE estimation for patients diagnosed with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). ABSSSI-MRSA is a challenging condition with reduced treatment options - vancomycin is the preferred choice, but it has non-negligible side effects. First, we use propensity score matching to emulate the trial and create a treatment randomized (vancomycin vs. other antibiotics) dataset. Next, we use this data to train various machine learning methods (including boosted/LASSO logistic regression, support vector machines, and random forest) and choose the best model in terms of area under the receiver characteristic (AUC) through bootstrap validation. Lastly, we use the models to calculate ITE and identify possible averted deaths by therapy change. The out-of-bag tests indicate that SVM and RF are the most accurate, with AUC of 81% and 78%, respectively, but BLR/LASSO is not far behind (76%). By calculating the counterfactuals using the BLR/LASSO, vancomycin increases the risk of death, but it shows a large variation (odds ratio 1.2, 95% range 0.4-3.8) and the contribution to outcome probability is modest. Instead, the RF exhibits stronger changes in ITE, suggesting more complex treatment heterogeneity.