Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31951005›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

On classifying sepsis heterogeneity in the ICU: insight using machine learning.

Zina M Ibrahim, Honghan Wu, Ahmed Hamoud, Lukas Stappen, Richard J B Dobson, Andrea Agarossi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Zina M IbrahimDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, King's College London, London, UK.
Honghan WuUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ahmed HamoudDepartment of Renal Medicine, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
Lukas StappenEmbedded Intelligence for Health Care and Wellbeing, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Richard J B DobsonDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, King's College London, London, UK.
Andrea AgarossiDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan, Italy.
King's College London · GBEast and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust · GBLuigi Sacco Hospital · ITUniversity of Augsburg · DEUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

British Heart FoundationChief Scientist OfficeMedical Research Council MC_PC_18029Medical Research Council MR/S004149/1Medical Research Council MR/S004149/2Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCurrent machine learning models aiming to predict sepsis from electronic health records (EHR) do not account 20 for the heterogeneity of the condition despite its emerging importance in prognosis and treatment. This work demonstrates the added value of stratifying the types of organ dysfunction observed in patients who develop sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU) in improving the ability to recognize patients at risk of sepsis from their EHR data. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing an ICU dataset of 13 728 records, we identify clinically significant sepsis subpopulations with distinct organ dysfunction patterns. We perform classification experiments with random forest, gradient boost trees, and support vector machines, using the identified subpopulations to distinguish patients who develop sepsis in the ICU from those who do not.

resultsThe classification results show that features selected using sepsis subpopulations as background knowledge yield a superior performance in distinguishing septic from non-septic patients regardless of the classification model used. The improved performance is especially pronounced in specificity, which is a current bottleneck in sepsis prediction machine learning models.

conclusionOur findings can steer machine learning efforts toward more personalized models for complex conditions including sepsis.

Indexed as

Machine LearningDiagnosis, DifferentialElectronic Health RecordsHumansIntensive Care UnitsOrgan Dysfunction ScoresSensitivity and SpecificitySepsisartificial intelligence in medicinemachine learningsepsissepsis predictionsepsis subtypes

Identifiers

PMID31951005
PMCPMC7025363
OpenAlexW3000385575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.