Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37588623›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023

Predicting sepsis using deep learning across international sites: a retrospective development and validation study.

Michael Moor, Nicolas Bennett, Drago Plečko, Max Horn, Bastian Rieck, Nicolai Meinshausen, Peter Bühlmann, Karsten Borgwardt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
17.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael MoorDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel 4058, Switzerland.
Nicolas BennettSeminar for Statistics, Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Drago PlečkoSeminar for Statistics, Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Max HornDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel 4058, Switzerland.
Bastian RieckDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel 4058, Switzerland.
Nicolai MeinshausenSeminar for Statistics, Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Peter BühlmannSeminar for Statistics, Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Karsten BorgwardtDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel 4058, Switzerland.
ETH Zurich · CHSIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: When sepsis is detected, organ damage may have progressed to irreversible stages, leading to poor prognosis. The use of machine learning for predicting sepsis early has shown promise, however international validations are missing. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational, multi-centre cohort study. We developed and externally validated a deep learning system for the prediction of sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our analysis represents the first international, multi-centre in-ICU cohort study for sepsis prediction using deep learning to our knowledge. Our dataset contains 136,478 unique ICU admissions, representing a refined and harmonised subset of four large ICU databases comprising data collected from ICUs in the US, the Netherlands, and Switzerland between 2001 and 2016. Using the international consensus definition Sepsis-3, we derived hourly-resolved sepsis annotations, amounting to 25,694 (18.8%) patient stays with sepsis. We compared our approach to clinical baselines as well as machine learning baselines and performed an extensive internal and external statistical validation within and across databases, reporting area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC). Findings: Averaged over sites, our model was able to predict sepsis with an AUC of 0.846 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.841-0.852) on a held-out validation cohort internal to each site, and an AUC of 0.761 (95% CI, 0.746-0.770) when validating externally across sites. Given access to a small fine-tuning set (10% per site), the transfer to target sites was improved to an AUC of 0.807 (95% CI, 0.801-0.813). Our model raised 1.4 false alerts per true alert and detected 80% of the septic patients 3.7 h (95% CI, 3.0-4.3) prior to the onset of sepsis, opening a vital window for intervention. Interpretation: By monitoring clinical and laboratory measurements in a retrospective simulation of a real-time prediction scenario, a deep learning system for the detection of sepsis generalised to previously unseen ICU cohorts, internationally. Funding: This study was funded by the Personalized Health and Related Technologies (PHRT) strategic focus area of the ETH domain.

Indexed as

Deep learningEarly predictionEarly warningICUIntensive careMachine learningSepsis

Identifiers

PMID37588623
PMCPMC10425671
OpenAlexW4385762558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.