Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36550392›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022

A machine learning approach using endpoint adjudication committee labels for the identification of sepsis predictors at the emergency department.

Michael S A Niemantsverdriet, Titus A P de Hond, Imo E Hoefer, Wouter W van Solinge, Domenico Bellomo, Jan Jelrik Oosterheert, Karin A H Kaasjager, Saskia Haitjema

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Artificial intelligence for early diagnosis in emergency department.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. SepsisJournal of medical microbiology · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Michael S A Niemantsverdriet *Central Diagnostic Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Room Number G03.551, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Titus A P de Hond *Department of Internal Medicine and Acute Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Imo E HoeferCentral Diagnostic Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Room Number G03.551, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wouter W van SolingeCentral Diagnostic Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Room Number G03.551, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Domenico BellomoSkylineDx, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan Jelrik OosterheertDepartment of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Karin A H Kaasjager *Department of Internal Medicine and Acute Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Saskia Haitjema *Central Diagnostic Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Room Number G03.551, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. s.haitjema@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate sepsis diagnosis is paramount for treatment decisions, especially at the emergency department (ED). To improve diagnosis, clinical decision support (CDS) tools are being developed with machine learning (ML) algorithms, using a wide range of variable groups. ML models can find patterns in Electronic Health Record (EHR) data that are unseen by the human eye. A prerequisite for a good model is the use of high-quality labels. Sepsis gold-standard labels are hard to define due to a lack of reliable diagnostic tools for sepsis at the ED. Therefore, standard clinical tools, such as clinical prediction scores (e.g. modified early warning score and quick sequential organ failure assessment), and claims-based methods (e.g. ICD-10) are used to generate suboptimal labels. As a consequence, models trained with these "silver" labels result in ill-trained models. In this study, we trained ML models for sepsis diagnosis at the ED with labels of 375 ED visits assigned by an endpoint adjudication committee (EAC) that consisted of 18 independent experts. Our objective was to evaluate which routinely measured variables show diagnostic value for sepsis. We performed univariate testing and trained multiple ML models with 95 routinely measured variables of three variable groups; demographic and vital, laboratory and advanced haematological variables. Apart from known diagnostic variables, we identified added diagnostic value for less conventional variables such as eosinophil count and platelet distribution width. In this explorative study, we show that the use of an EAC together with ML can identify new targets for future sepsis diagnosis research.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalSepsisAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesElectronic health recordsEmergency departmentEndpoint adjudicationMachine learningSepsis

Identifiers

PMID36550392
PMCPMC9784058

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.