Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Machine learning to develop a predictive model of pressure injury in persons with spinal cord injury

Spinal Cord volume 61, pages 513–520 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Study design

A 5-year longitudinal, retrospective, cohort study.

Objectives

Develop a prediction model based on electronic health record (EHR) data to identify veterans with spinal cord injury/diseases (SCI/D) at highest risk for new pressure injuries (PIs).

Setting

Structured (coded) and text EHR data, for veterans with SCI/D treated in a VHA SCI/D Center between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2013.

Methods

A total of 4709 veterans were available for analysis after randomly selecting 175 to act as a validation (gold standard) sample. Machine learning models were created using ten-fold cross validation and three techniques: (1) two-step logistic regression; (2) regression model employing adaptive LASSO; (3) and gradient boosting. Models based on each method were compared using area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) analysis.

Results

The AUC value for the gradient boosting model was 0.62 (95% CI = 0.54–0.70), for the logistic regression model it was 0.67 (95% CI = 0.59–0.75), and for the adaptive LASSO model it was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.65–80). Based on these results, the adaptive LASSO model was chosen for interpretation. The strongest predictors of new PI cases were having fewer total days in the hospital in the year before the annual exam, higher vs. lower weight and most severe vs. less severe grade of injury based on the American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale.

Conclusions

While the analyses resulted in a potentially useful predictive model, clinical implications were limited because modifiable risk factors were absent in the models.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Observation period.
Fig. 2: Cohort and Sample Selection.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due the fact that they included Individually Identifiable Data which can only be shared pursuant to a written request and IRB approved waiver of HIPAA authorization, with the approval of the Under Secretary for Health, in accordance with VHA Handbook 1605.1 §13.b(1)(b) or §13.b(1)(c) or superseding versions of that Handbook.

References

  1. Chen HL, Cai JY, Du L, Shen HW, Yu HR, Song YP, et al. Incidence of pressure injury in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2020;47:215–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hogaboom NS, Worobey LA, Houlihan BV, Heinemann AW, Boninger ML. Wheelchair breakdowns are associated with pain, pressure injuries, rehospitalization, and self-perceived health in full-time wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:1949–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. European Pressure Ulcer Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries. EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA; 2019. Available from: https://guidelinesales.com/page/NPIAP.

  4. Edsberg LE, Langemo D, Baharestani MM, Posthauer ME, Goldberg M. Unavoidable pressure injury: state of the science and consensus outcomes. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2014;41:313–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Groah SL, Schladen M, Pineda CG, Hsieh CHJ. Prevention of pressure ulcers among people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. PM R. 2015;7:613–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Moore ZE, Patton D. Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD006471.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Källman U, Lindgren M. Predictive validity of 4 risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcer development in a hospital setting. Advances in skin & wound care [Internet]. 2014 Feb [cited 2022 Oct 17]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24440864/.

  8. Flett HM, Delparte JJ, Scovil CY, Higgins J, Laramée MT, Burns AS. Determining pressure injury risk on admission to inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation: a comparison of the FIM, Spinal Cord Injury Pressure Ulcer Scale, and Braden Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:1881–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bogie KM, Roggenkamp SK, Zeng N, Seton JM, Schwartz KR, Henzel MK, et al. Development of predictive informatics tool using electronic health records to inform personalized evidence-based pressure injury management for veterans with spinal cord injury. Mil Med. 2021;186:651–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Burkhart L, Skemp L, Siddiqui S. Veteran model of preventing community-acquired pressure injuries associated with spinal cord injury: a qualitative descriptive study. J Spinal Cord Med. 2021;1–15 https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2021.1982177.

  11. Bi Q, Goodman KE, Kaminsky J, Lessler J. What is machine learning? A primer for the epidemiologist. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188:2222–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shamout F, Zhu T, Clifton DA. Machine learning for clinical outcome prediction. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2021;14:116–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis SE, Lasko TA, Chen G, Siew ED, Matheny ME. Calibration drift in regression and machine learning models for acute kidney injury. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2017;24:1052–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Koola JD, Ho S, Chen G, Perkins AM, Cao A, Davis SE, et al. Development of a national Department of Veterans Affairs mortality risk prediction model among patients with cirrhosis. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2019;6:e000342.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sánchez-Cabo F, Rossello X, Fuster V, Benito F, Manzano JP, Silla JC, et al. Machine learning improves cardiovascular risk definition for young, asymptomatic individuals. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:1674–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stark GF, Hart GR, Nartowt BJ, Deng J. Predicting breast cancer risk using personal health data and machine learning models. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0226765.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Alderden J, Pepper GA, Wilson A, Whitney JD, Richardson S, Butcher R, et al. Predicting pressure injury in critical care patients: a machine-learning model. Am J Crit Care. 2018;27:461–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee SK, Ahn J, Shin JH, Lee JY. Application of machine learning methods in nursing home research. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:E6234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cai JY, Zha ML, Song YP, Chen HL. Predicting the development of surgery-related pressure injury using a machine learning algorithm model. J Nurs Res. 2020;29:e135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Song W, Kang MJ, Zhang L, Jung W, Song J, Bates DW, et al. Predicting pressure injury using nursing assessment phenotypes and machine learning methods. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2021;28:759–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Veterans Affairs, SCI System of Care [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.sci.va.gov/VAs_SCID_System_of_Care.asp.

  22. Luther SL, Thomason SS, Sabharwal S, Finch DK, McCart J, Toyinbo P, et al. Leveraging electronic health care record information to measure pressure ulcer risk in veterans with spinal cord injury: a longitudinal study protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017;6:e3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Quinlan JR. Decision trees and decision-making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1990;20:339–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pruitt R. 146-2008: Using SAS® Enterprise MinerTM to prescribe a pre-screen mailing. SAS Glob Forum. 2008;6:1–6.

  25. Data Mining Software, Model Development and Deployment, SAS Enterprise Miner [Internet]. SAS® Enterprise MinerTM. 2018 [cited 2022 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.sas.com/en_us/software/enterprise-miner.html.

  26. Alba AC, Agoritsas T, Walsh M, Hanna S, Iorio A, Devereaux PJ, et al. Discrimination and calibration of clinical prediction models: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2017;318:1377–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. VHA Support Service Center Capital Assets (VSSC), Department of Veterans Affairs Open Data Portal [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.data.va.gov/dataset/VHA-Support-Service-Center-Capital-Assets-VSSC-/2fr5-sktm.

  28. Centers for medicare and medicaid services. 2022 ICD-10-CM | CMS [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/icd-10/2022-icd-10-cm.

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a grant awarded from the Health Services Research and Development Service, Veterans Health Administration (IIR 12-064). The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official policy or position of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government. The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Service, James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA

    Stephen L. Luther, Dezon K. Finch, James McCart, Peter Toyinbo, William Lapcevic & Bridget Hahm

  2. College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Stephen L. Luther

  3. Tampa VA Research and Education Foundation, Inc, Tampa, FL, USA

    Susan S. Thomason

  4. VA Boston Health Care System, Spinal Cord Injury Service, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Sunil Sabharwal

  5. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Sunil Sabharwal

  6. College of Business, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    Lina Bouayad

  7. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Ronald G. Hauser

  8. Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Care, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA

    Michael E. Matheny

  9. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Michael E. Matheny

  10. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Michael E. Matheny

  11. Division of General Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Michael E. Matheny

  12. Research & Development Service, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN College of Nursing, Nashville, TN, USA

    Michael E. Matheny

  13. University of California, School of Nursing, Davis, CA, USA

    Gail Powell-Cope

Authors
  1. Stephen L. Luther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan S. Thomason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sunil Sabharwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dezon K. Finch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James McCart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter Toyinbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lina Bouayad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. William Lapcevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bridget Hahm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ronald G. Hauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Michael E. Matheny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Gail Powell-Cope
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SL was the study principal investigator and responsible for overall study design, execution of the study, data analysis and the manuscript. ST and SS were clinical experts who assisted in conceptualizing the study, identifying, and operationalizing variables and identifying clinical implications. DF, JM, PT, LB, and WL assisted in data management and data analysis. BH was the study project manager and administered day to day aspects of project. RH assisted with analysis of laboratory data, MM was involved in data acquisition and analysis and advised SL in data analysis, particularly in model development. GP participated in conceptualization of the study and assisted SL in writing the manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen L. Luther.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital Research and Development Committee and VA Central Institutional Review Board.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luther, S.L., Thomason, S.S., Sabharwal, S. et al. Machine learning to develop a predictive model of pressure injury in persons with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 61, 513–520 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00924-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00924-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links