Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:20:04.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation Study of Artificial Neural Network Models for Prediction of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Carriage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Cheng-Chuan Hsu ,
Yusen E. Lin ,
Yao-Shen Chen ,
Yung-Ching Liu  and
Robert R. Muder
Cheng-Chuan Hsu
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of Environmental Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Yusen E. Lin*
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of Environmental Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Yao-Shen Chen
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of Environmental Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Section of Infectious Diseases, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Yung-Ching Liu
Affiliation:
Section of Infectious Diseases, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Robert R. Muder
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Section, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
*
Graduate Institute of Environmental Education National Kaohsiung Normal University, 62 Shen-chong Road, Yanchao, Kaohsiung, Taiwan824 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Use of active surveillance cultures for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit has been shown to reduce nosocomial transmission. However, the cost-effectiveness and the utility of implementing use of active surveillance cultures nationwide remain controversial. We sought to develop an artificial neural network (ANN) model that would predict the likelihood of MRSA colonization.

Setting.

Two acute care hospitals, one in Pittsburgh (hospital A) and one in Kaohsiung, Taiwan (hospital B).

Methods.

Nasal cultures were performed for all patients admitted to the hospitals. A total of 46 potential risk factors in hospital A and 86 potential risk factors in hospital B associated with MRSA colonization were assessed. Culture results were obtained; 75% of the data were used for training our ANN model, and the remaining 25% were used for validating our ANN model. The culture results were the “gold standard” for determining the accuracy of the model predictions.

Results.

The ANN model predictions were accurate 95.2% of the time for hospital A (sensitivity, 94.3%; specificity, 96.0%) and 94.2% of the time for hospital B (sensitivity, 96.6%; specificity, 91.8%), integrating all potential risk factors into the model. Only 17 potential risk factors were needed for the hospital A ANN model (accuracy, 90.9%; sensitivity, 98.5%; specificity, 83.4%), and only 20 potential risk factors were needed for the hospital B ANN model (accuracy, 90.5%; sensitivity, 96.6%; specificity, 84.3%), if the minimal risk factor method was used. Cross-validation analysis showed an average accuracy of 85.6% (sensitivity, 91.3%; specificity, 80.0%).

Conclusion.

Our ANN model can be used to predict with an accuracy of more than 90% which patients carry MRSA. The false-negative rates were significantly lower than the false-positive rates in the ANN predictions, which can serve as a safety buffer in case of patient misclassification.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 29 , Issue 7 , July 2008 , pp. 607 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Chambers, HF. The changing epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus'. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:178–182.Google Scholar
2.Klevens, RM, Edwards, JR, Tenover, FC, McDonald, LC, Horan, T, Gaynes, R; National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Changes in the epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units in US hospitals, 1992–2003. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:389–391.Google Scholar
3.Klevens, RM, Morrison, MA, Nadle, J, et al. Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States. JAMA 2007;298:1763–1771.Google Scholar
4.Hsueh, PR, Teng, LJ, Chen, WH, et al. Increasing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus causing nosocomial infections at a university hospital in Taiwan from 1986 to 2001. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48:1361–1364.Google Scholar
5.Warren, DK, Guth, RM, Coopersmith, CM, Merz, LR, Zack, JE, Fraser, VJ. Impact of a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus active surveillance program on contact precaution utilization in a surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2007;35:430–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Warren, DK, Guth, RM, Coopersmith, CM, Merz, LR, Zack, JE, Fraser, VJ. Epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in a surgical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:1032–1040.Google Scholar
7.Shitrit, P, Gottesman, BS, Katzir, M, Kilman, A, Ben-Nissan, Y, Chowers, M. Active surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decreases the incidence of MRSA bacteremia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:1004–1008.Google Scholar
8.Illinois General Assembly. Bill Status of HB0378, 95th General Assembly. Available at: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HB/09500HB0378.htm. Accessed September 18, 2007.Google Scholar
9.Maryland General Assembly. Hospitals and Nursing Facilities—Healthcare-Associated Infections Prevention and Control Program. Available at: http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/billfile/hb0966.htm. Accessed September 18, 2007.Google Scholar
10.Weber, SG, Huang, SS, Oriola, S, et al. Legislative mandates for use of active surveillance cultures to screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci: position statement from the Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:249–260.Google Scholar
11.Diekema, DJ, Edmond, MB. Look before you leap: active surveillance for multidrug-resistant organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:1101–1107.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Farr, BM. What to think if the results of the National Institutes of Health randomized trial of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus control measures are negative (and other advice to young epidemiologists): a review and an au revoir. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:1096–1106.Google Scholar
13.Nijssen, S, Bonten, MJ, Weinstein, RA. Are active microbiological surveillance and subsequent isolation needed to prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus'! Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:405–409.Google Scholar
14.Hart, A, Wyatt, J. Connectionist models in medicine: an investigation of their potential. In: Hunter, J, Cookson, J, Wyatt, J, eds. AIME-89, Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics. Vol. 38. Berlin: Springer; 1989:115–124.Google Scholar
15.Hamid, A, Dwivedi, US, Singh, TN, et al. Artificial neural networks in predicting optimum renal stone fragmentation by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a preliminary study. BJU Int 2003;91:821–824.Google Scholar
16.Schmid, P, Wischnewsky, MB, Sezer, O, Bohm, R, Possinger, K. Prediction of response to hormonal treatment in metastatic breast cancer. Oncology 2002;63:309–316.Google Scholar
17.Frize, M, Ennett, CM, Stevenson, M, Trigg, HC. Clinical decision support systems for intensive care units: using artificial neural networks. Med Eng Phys 2001;23:217–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Frize, M, Ibrahim, D, Seker, H, et al. Predicting clinical outcomes for newborns using two artificial intelligence approaches. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2004;5:3202–3205.Google Scholar
19.Shang, JS, Lin, YS, Goetz, AM. Diagnosis of MRSA with neural networks and logistic regression approach. Health Care Manag Sci 2000;3:287–297.Google Scholar
20.Baxt, WG. Application of artificial neural networks to clinical medicine. Lancet 1995;346:1135–1138.Google Scholar
21.Karchmer, TB, Durbin, LJ, Simonton, BM, Farr, BM. Cost-effectiveness of active surveillance cultures and contact/droplet precautions for control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Hosp Infect 2002;51:126–132.Google Scholar
22.Chaix, C, Durand-Zaleski, I, Alberti, C, Brun-Buisson, C. Control of endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a cost-benefit analysis in an intensive care unit. JAMA 1999;282:1745–1751.Google Scholar
23.Papia, G, Louie, M, Tralla, A, Johnson, C, Collins, V, Simor, AE. Screening high-risk patients for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on admission to the hospital: is it cost effective? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:473–477.Google Scholar
24.Gavalda, L, Masuet, C, Beltran, J, et al. Comparative cost of selective screening to prevent transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), compared with the attributable costs of MRSA infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:1264–1266.Google Scholar
25.Furuno, JP, Harris, AD, Wright, MO, et al. Prediction rules to identify patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci upon hospital admission. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:436–440.Google Scholar
26.Roghmann, MC, Siddiqui, A, Plaisance, K, Standiford, H. MRSA colonization and the risk of MRSA bacteraemia in hospitalized patients with chronic ulcers. J Hosp Infect 2001;47:98–103.Google Scholar
27.Goetz, A, Posey, K, Fleming, J, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the community: a hospital-based study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:689–691.Google Scholar