Comparison of static and dynamic random forests models for EHR data in the presence of competing risks: predicting central line-associated bloodstream infection

TL;DR

This study compares static and dynamic random forest models for predicting bloodstream infections in hospital data, highlighting that complex models do not significantly outperform simpler ones in non-censored settings.

Contribution

It demonstrates that in non-censored hospital data, simple binary models perform comparably to complex competing risks models for infection prediction.

Findings

Binary, multinomial, and competing risks models have similar AUROC scores.

Survival models tend to overestimate infection risk.

Complex models do not significantly improve prediction over simple binary models.

Abstract

Prognostic outcomes related to hospital admissions typically do not suffer from censoring, and can be modeled either categorically or as time-to-event. Competing events are common but often ignored. We compared the performance of random forest (RF) models to predict the risk of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) using different outcome operationalizations. We included data from 27478 admissions to the University Hospitals Leuven, covering 30862 catheter episodes (970 CLABSI, 1466 deaths and 28426 discharges) to build static and dynamic RF models for binary (CLABSI vs no CLABSI), multinomial (CLABSI, discharge, death or no event), survival (time to CLABSI) and competing risks (time to CLABSI, discharge or death) outcomes to predict the 7-day CLABSI risk. We evaluated model performance across 100 train/test splits. Performance of binary, multinomial and competing risks models was similar: AUROC was 0.74 for baseline predictions, rose to 0.78 for predictions at day 5 in the catheter episode, and decreased thereafter. Survival models overestimated the risk of CLABSI (E:O ratios between 1.2 and 1.6), and had AUROCs about 0.01 lower than other models. Binary and multinomial models had lowest computation times. Models including multiple outcome events (multinomial and competing risks) display a different internal structure compared to binary and survival models. In the absence of censoring, complex modelling choices do not considerably improve the predictive performance compared to a binary model for CLABSI prediction in our studied settings. Survival models censoring the competing events at their time of occurrence should be avoided.