Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31389839›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2019

A Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Development, Implementation, and Impact on Clinical Practice.

Heather M Giannini, Jennifer C Ginestra, Corey Chivers, Michael Draugelis, Asaf Hanish, William D Schweickert, Barry D Fuchs, Laurie Meadows, Michael Lynch, Patrick J Donnelly and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

139 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Heather M GianniniDepartment of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Jennifer C GinestraDepartment of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Corey ChiversUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
Michael DraugelisUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
Asaf HanishUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
William D SchweickertUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
Barry D FuchsUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
Laurie MeadowsDepartment of Nursing, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Michael LynchDepartment of Nursing, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Patrick J DonnellyDepartment of Clinical Informatics, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.
Kimberly PavanPenn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Neil O FishmanUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
C William HansonUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
Craig A UmscheidUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.

Funding

INSTITUTIONAL CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARDUL1RR024134 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FITZGERALD, GARRET A · 2006 to 2011
$70.4M
Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000003 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FITZGERALD, GARRET A · 2012 to 2015
$38.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000003NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDevelop and implement a machine learning algorithm to predict severe sepsis and septic shock and evaluate the impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes.

designRetrospective cohort for algorithm derivation and validation, pre-post impact evaluation.

settingTertiary teaching hospital system in Philadelphia, PA. PATIENTS: All non-ICU admissions; algorithm derivation July 2011 to June 2014 (n = 162,212); algorithm validation October to December 2015 (n = 10,448); silent versus alert comparison January 2016 to February 2017 (silent n = 22,280; alert n = 32,184).

interventionsA random-forest classifier, derived and validated using electronic health record data, was deployed both silently and later with an alert to notify clinical teams of sepsis prediction. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN

resultPatients identified for training the algorithm were required to have International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition codes for severe sepsis or septic shock and a positive blood culture during their hospital encounter with either a lactate greater than 2.2 mmol/L or a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg. The algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 26% and specificity of 98%, with a positive predictive value of 29% and positive likelihood ratio of 13. The alert resulted in a small statistically significant increase in lactate testing and IV fluid administration. There was no significant difference in mortality, discharge disposition, or transfer to ICU, although there was a reduction in time-to-ICU transfer.

conclusionsOur machine learning algorithm can predict, with low sensitivity but high specificity, the impending occurrence of severe sepsis and septic shock. Algorithm-generated predictive alerts modestly impacted clinical measures. Next steps include describing clinical perception of this tool and optimizing algorithm design and delivery.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningCohort StudiesElectronic Health RecordsHospitals, TeachingHumansRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySepsisShock, SepticText Messaging

Identifiers

PMID31389839
PMCPMC8635476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.