Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33008381›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Using machine learning methods to predict in-hospital mortality of sepsis patients in the ICU.

Guilan Kong, Ke Lin, Yonghua Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

31 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

3 authors.

Guilan KongNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing, China. guilan.kong@hsc.pku.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-0851-1644
Ke LinNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yonghua HuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81771938National Natural Science Foundation of China 91846101Peking University BMU2018MX020Peking University BMU2020JI011Peking University PKU2017LCX05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly and accurate identification of sepsis patients with high risk of in-hospital death can help physicians in intensive care units (ICUs) make optimal clinical decisions. This study aimed to develop machine learning-based tools to predict the risk of hospital death of patients with sepsis in ICUs.

methodsThe source database used for model development and validation is the medical information mart for intensive care (MIMIC) III. We identified adult sepsis patients using the new sepsis definition Sepsis-3. A total of 86 predictor variables consisting of demographics, laboratory tests and comorbidities were used. We employed the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM) and the traditional logistic regression (LR) method to develop prediction models. In addition, the prediction performance of the four developed models was evaluated and compared with that of an existent scoring tool - simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II - using five different performance measures: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Brier score, sensitivity, specificity and calibration plot.

resultsThe records of 16,688 sepsis patients in MIMIC III were used for model training and test. Amongst them, 2949 (17.7%) patients had in-hospital death. The average AUROCs of the LASSO, RF, GBM, LR and SAPS II models were 0.829, 0.829, 0.845, 0.833 and 0.77, respectively. The Brier scores of the LASSO, RF, GBM, LR and SAPS II models were 0.108, 0.109, 0.104, 0.107 and 0.146, respectively. The calibration plots showed that the GBM, LASSO and LR models had good calibration; the RF model underestimated high-risk patients; and SAPS II had the poorest calibration.

conclusionThe machine learning-based models developed in this study had good prediction performance. Amongst them, the GBM model showed the best performance in predicting the risk of in-hospital death. It has the potential to assist physicians in the ICU to perform appropriate clinical interventions for critically ill sepsis patients and thus may help improve the prognoses of sepsis patients in the ICU.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityMachine LearningAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCritical CareCritical IllnessFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalSepsisIn-hospital mortalityIntensive care unitMachine learningPrediction modelSepsis

Identifiers

PMID33008381
PMCPMC7531110

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.