Key result
Machine learning predicts ASA physical status scores with only fair consistency versus anesthesiologists.
Why the study?
Variability in ASA Physical Status Classification scoring due to individual anesthesiologist biases impacts clinical predictions and billing, necessitating an objective reproducible method.
Does a machine learning algorithm improve the consistency of ASA Physical Status Classification scoring compared to manual assessment by anesthesiologists in surgical patients?
Observational (n=14,063)
No
Does a machine learning algorithm improve the consistency of ASA Physical Status Classification scoring compared to manual assessment by anesthesiologists in surgical patients?
Effect estimate: ICC 0.427 (95% CI 0.393, 0.459)
A machine learning algorithm demonstrated fair-to-good consistency in assigning ASA scores, outperforming the poor consistency observed between manual anesthesiologist assessments.
Background The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System defines peri-operative patient scores as 1 (healthy) thru 6 (brain dead). The scoring is used by the anesthesiologists to classify surgical patients based on co-morbidities and various clinical characteristics. The classification is always done by an anesthesiologist prior operation. There is a variability in scoring stemming from individual experiences / biases of the scoring anesthesiologists, which impacts prediction of operating times, length of stay in the hospital, necessity of blood transfusion, etc. In addition, the score affects anesthesia coding and billing. It is critical to remove subjectivity from the process to achieve reproducible generalizable scoring. Methods A machine learning (ML) approach was used to associate assigned ASA scores with peri-operative patients’ clinical characteristics. More than ten ML algorithms were simultaneously trained, validated, and tested with retrospective records. The most accurate algorithm was chosen for a subsequent test on an independent dataset. DataRobot platform was used to run and select the ML algorithms. Manual scoring was also performed by one anesthesiologist. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the consistency of scoring Results Records of 19,095 procedures corresponding to 12,064 patients with assigned ASA scores by 17 City of Hope anesthesiologists were used to train a number of ML algorithms (DataRobot platform). The most accurate algorithm was tested with independent records of 2325 procedures corresponding to 1999 patients. In addition, 86 patients from the same dataset were scored manually. The following ICC values were computed: COH anesthesiologists vs. ML – 0.427 (fair); manual vs. ML – 0.523 (fair-to-good); manual vs. COH anesthesiologists – 0.334 (poor). Conclusions We have shown the feasibility of using ML for assessing the ASA score. In principle, a group of experts ( i . e . physicians, institutions, etc .) can train the ML algorithm such that individual experiences and biases would cancel each leaving the objective ASA score intact. As more data are being collected, a valid foundation for refinement to the ML will emerge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pozhitkov et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Surgical patients with cancer (n=14,063). Machine learning algorithm vs. Manual scoring by anesthesiologists was evaluated on Consistency of ASA scoring (Intraclass correlation coefficient) (ICC 0.427, 95% CI 0.393, 0.459). A machine learning algorithm predicted ASA physical status classification scores with fair consistency compared to consensus anesthesiologist scores (ICC 0.427) and fair-to-good consistency compared to a single blinded anesthesiologist (ICC 0.523).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: