Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30794638›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Machine learning models for early sepsis recognition in the neonatal intensive care unit using readily available electronic health record data.

Aaron J Masino, Mary Catherine Harris, Daniel Forsyth, Svetlana Ostapenko, Lakshmi Srinivasan, Christopher P Bonafide, Fran Balamuth, Melissa Schmatz, Robert W Grundmeier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Aaron J MasinoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2684-0548
Mary Catherine HarrisDepartment of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Daniel ForsythDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Svetlana OstapenkoDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Lakshmi SrinivasanDepartment of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6786-9523
Christopher P BonafideDepartment of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Fran BalamuthDepartment of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Melissa SchmatzDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Robert W GrundmeierDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8290-5588

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid antibiotic administration is known to improve sepsis outcomes, however early diagnosis remains challenging due to complex presentation. Our objective was to develop a model using readily available electronic health record (EHR) data capable of recognizing infant sepsis at least 4 hours prior to clinical recognition. METHODS AND

findingsWe performed a retrospective case control study of infants hospitalized ≥48 hours in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia between September 2014 and November 2017 who received at least one sepsis evaluation before 12 months of age. We considered two evaluation outcomes as cases: culture positive-positive blood culture for a known pathogen (110 evaluations); and clinically positive-negative cultures but antibiotics administered for ≥120 hours (265 evaluations). Case data was taken from the 44-hour window ending 4 hours prior to evaluation. We randomly sampled 1,100 44-hour windows of control data from all times ≥10 days removed from any evaluation. Model inputs consisted of up to 36 features derived from routine EHR data. Using 10-fold nested cross-validation, 8 machine learning models were trained to classify inputs as sepsis positive or negative. When tasked with discriminating culture positive cases from controls, 6 models achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) between 0.80-0.82 with no significant differences between them. Including both culture and clinically positive cases, the same 6 models achieved an AUC between 0.85-0.87, again with no significant differences.

conclusionsMachine learning models can identify infants with sepsis in the NICU hours prior to clinical recognition. Learning curves indicate model improvement may be achieved with additional training examples. Additional input features may also improve performance. Further research is warranted to assess potential performance improvements and clinical efficacy in a prospective trial.

Indexed as

Critical CareDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedElectronic Health RecordsMachine LearningModels, BiologicalFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleRetrospective StudiesSepsis

Identifiers

PMID30794638
PMCPMC6386402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.