Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33467539›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Early Detection of Septic Shock Onset Using Interpretable Machine Learners.

Debdipto Misra, Venkatesh Avula, Donna M Wolk, Hosam A Farag, Jiang Li, Yatin B Mehta, Ranjeet Sandhu, Bipin Karunakaran, Shravan Kethireddy, Ramin Zand and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

11 authors.

Debdipto MisraSteele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Venkatesh AvulaDepartment of Molecular and Functional Genomics, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5141-1502
Donna M WolkDiagnostic Medicine Institute, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2828-5135
Hosam A FaragDiagnostic Medicine Institute, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Jiang LiDepartment of Molecular and Functional Genomics, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Yatin B MehtaCritical Care Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Ranjeet SandhuSteele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Bipin KarunakaranSteele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Shravan KethireddyCritical Care Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Ramin ZandNeuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Vida AbediDepartment of Molecular and Functional Genomics, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7689-933X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeveloping a decision support system based on advances in machine learning is one area for strategic innovation in healthcare. Predicting a patient's progression to septic shock is an active field of translational research. The goal of this study was to develop a working model of a clinical decision support system for predicting septic shock in an acute care setting for up to 6 h from the time of admission in an integrated healthcare setting.

methodClinical data from Electronic Health Record (EHR), at encounter level, were used to build a predictive model for progression from sepsis to septic shock up to 6 h from the time of admission; that is,

resultsRetrospective data from April 2005 to September 2018 were extracted from the EHR, Insurance Claims, Billing, and Laboratory Systems to create a dataset for septic shock detection. The clinical criteria and billing information were used to label patients into two classes-septic shock patients and sepsis patients at three different time points from admission, creating two different case-control cohorts. Data from 45,425 unique in-patient visits were used to build 96 prediction models comparing clinical-based definition versus billing-based information as the gold standard. Of the 24 consolidated models (based on eight machine learning algorithms and three feature windows), four models reached an AUROC greater than 0.9. Overall, all the consolidated models reached an AUROC of at least 0.8820 or higher. Based on the AUROC of 0.9483, the best model was based on Random Forest, with a sensitivity of 83.9% and specificity of 88.1%. The sepsis detection window at 6 h outperformed the 1 and 3-h windows. The sepsis definition based on clinical variables had improved performance when compared to the sepsis definition based on only billing information.

conclusionThis study corroborated that machine learning models can be developed to predict septic shock using clinical and administrative data. However, the use of clinical information to define septic shock outperformed models developed based on only administrative data. Intelligent decision support tools can be developed and integrated into the EHR and improve clinical outcomes and facilitate the optimization of resources in real-time.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decision support systemelectronic health recordexplainable machine learninghealthcareinterpretable machine learningmachine learningseptic shock

Identifiers

PMID33467539
PMCPMC7830968

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.