Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35416785›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Predicting Sepsis Mortality in a Population-Based National Database: Machine Learning Approach.

James Yeongjun Park, Tzu-Chun Hsu, Jiun-Ruey Hu, Chun-Yuan Chen, Wan-Ting Hsu, Matthew Lee, Joshua Ho, Chien-Chang Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

James Yeongjun ParkDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3461-695X
Tzu-Chun HsuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-6503-8139
Jiun-Ruey HuDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1390-508X
Chun-Yuan ChenDepartment of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-3447-5579
Wan-Ting HsuDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6677-0951
Matthew LeeMedical Wizdom, LLC, Brookline, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6564-9084
Joshua HoCenter of Intelligent Healthcare, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-7165-1893
Chien-Chang LeeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1243-2463
National Taiwan University Hospital · TWHarvard University · USNational Taiwan University · TWWizdom Systems (United States) · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough machine learning (ML) algorithms have been applied to point-of-care sepsis prognostication, ML has not been used to predict sepsis mortality in an administrative database. Therefore, we examined the performance of common ML algorithms in predicting sepsis mortality in adult patients with sepsis and compared it with that of the conventional context knowledge-based logistic regression approach.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to examine the performance of common ML algorithms in predicting sepsis mortality in adult patients with sepsis and compare it with that of the conventional context knowledge-based logistic regression approach.

methodsWe examined inpatient admissions for sepsis in the US National Inpatient Sample using hospitalizations in 2010-2013 as the training data set. We developed four ML models to predict in-hospital mortality: logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regularization, random forest, gradient-boosted decision tree, and deep neural network. To estimate their performance, we compared our models with the Super Learner model. Using hospitalizations in 2014 as the testing data set, we examined the models' area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), confusion matrix results, and net reclassification improvement.

resultsHospitalizations of 923,759 adults were included in the analysis. Compared with the reference logistic regression (AUC: 0.786, 95% CI 0.783-0.788), all ML models showed superior discriminative ability (P<.001), including logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regularization (AUC: 0.878, 95% CI 0.876-0.879), random forest (AUC: 0.878, 95% CI 0.877-0.880), xgboost (AUC: 0.888, 95% CI 0.886-0.889), and neural network (AUC: 0.893, 95% CI 0.891-0.895). All 4 ML models showed higher sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value compared with the reference logistic regression model (P<.001). We obtained similar results from the Super Learner model (AUC: 0.883, 95% CI 0.881-0.885).

conclusionsML approaches can improve sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, discrimination, and calibration in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with sepsis in the United States. These models need further validation and could be applied to develop more accurate models to compare risk-standardized mortality rates across hospitals and geographic regions, paving the way for research and policy initiatives studying disparities in sepsis care.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSepsisAdultHospital MortalityHumansLogistic ModelsROC Curvemachine learningmortalitysepsisSuperLearner

Identifiers

PMID35416785
PMCPMC9047761
OpenAlexW4223637132

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.