Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32734166›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2020

Machine learning for early detection of sepsis: an internal and temporal validation study.

Armando D Bedoya, Joseph Futoma, Meredith E Clement, Kristin Corey, Nathan Brajer, Anthony Lin, Morgan G Simons, Michael Gao, Marshall Nichols, Suresh Balu and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. SepsisJournal of medical microbiology · 2025
    Review
  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

13 authors.

Armando D BedoyaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6496-7024
Joseph FutomaDepartment of Statistics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Meredith E ClementDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Kristin CoreyDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Nathan BrajerDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Anthony LinDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Morgan G SimonsDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Michael GaoDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Marshall NicholsDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Suresh BaluDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Katherine HellerDepartment of Statistics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Mark SendakDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5828-4497
Cara O'BrienDepartment of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDetermine if deep learning detects sepsis earlier and more accurately than other models. To evaluate model performance using implementation-oriented metrics that simulate clinical practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe trained internally and temporally validated a deep learning model (multi-output Gaussian process and recurrent neural network [MGP-RNN]) to detect sepsis using encounters from adult hospitalized patients at a large tertiary academic center. Sepsis was defined as the presence of 2 or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, a blood culture order, and at least one element of end-organ failure. The training dataset included demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, medication administrations, and labs from October 1, 2014 to December 1, 2015, while the temporal validation dataset was from March 1, 2018 to August 31, 2018. Comparisons were made to 3 machine learning methods, random forest (RF), Cox regression (CR), and penalized logistic regression (PLR), and 3 clinical scores used to detect sepsis, SIRS, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS). Traditional discrimination statistics such as the C-statistic as well as metrics aligned with operational implementation were assessed.

resultsThe training set and internal validation included 42 979 encounters, while the temporal validation set included 39 786 encounters. The C-statistic for predicting sepsis within 4 h of onset was 0.88 for the MGP-RNN compared to 0.836 for RF, 0.849 for CR, 0.822 for PLR, 0.756 for SIRS, 0.619 for NEWS, and 0.481 for qSOFA. MGP-RNN detected sepsis a median of 5 h in advance. Temporal validation assessment continued to show the MGP-RNN outperform all 7 clinical risk score and machine learning comparisons.

conclusionsWe developed and validated a novel deep learning model to detect sepsis. Using our data elements and feature set, our modeling approach outperformed other machine learning methods and clinical scores.

Indexed as

adultclinicaldecisionelectronic health records/statistics and numerical dataemergency servicehospitalization/statistics and numerical datahospital/statistics and numerical datamachine learningretrospective studiesROC curvesepsis/mortalitysupport systems

Identifiers

PMID32734166
PMCPMC7382639

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.