Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37910497›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2023

Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection.

Varesh Prasad, Baturay Aydemir, Iain E Kehoe, Chaya Kotturesh, Abigail O'Connell, Brett Biebelberg, Yang Wang, James C Lynch, Jeremy A Pepino, Michael R Filbin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Varesh PrasadHarvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4125-5205
Baturay AydemirDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Iain E KehoeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0834-5076
Chaya KottureshDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Abigail O'ConnellDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Brett BiebelbergDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7630-3807
Yang WangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5063-3530
James C LynchInstitute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4935-960X
Jeremy A PepinoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Michael R FilbinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2588-7504
Thomas HeldtHarvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Andrew T ReisnerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USMassachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many early warning algorithms are downstream of clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing, which means that they may not be useful when clinicians fail to suspect illness and fail to order appropriate tests. Depending on how such algorithms handle missing data, they could even indicate "low risk" simply because the testing data were never ordered. We considered predictive methodologies to identify sepsis at triage, before diagnostic tests are ordered, in a busy Emergency Department (ED). One algorithm used "bland clinical data" (data available at triage for nearly every patient). The second algorithm added three yes/no questions to be answered after the triage interview. Retrospectively, we studied adult patients from a single ED between 2014-16, separated into training (70%) and testing (30%) cohorts, and a final validation cohort of patients from four EDs between 2016-2018. Sepsis was defined per the Rhee criteria. Investigational predictors were demographics and triage vital signs (downloaded from the hospital EMR); past medical history; and the auxiliary queries (answered by chart reviewers who were blinded to all data except the triage note and initial HPI). We developed L2-regularized logistic regression models using a greedy forward feature selection. There were 1164, 499, and 784 patients in the training, testing, and validation cohorts, respectively. The bland clinical data model yielded ROC AUC's 0.78 (0.76-0.81) and 0.77 (0.73-0.81), for training and testing, respectively, and ranged from 0.74-0.79 in four hospital validation. The second model which included auxiliary queries yielded 0.84 (0.82-0.87) and 0.83 (0.79-0.86), and ranged from 0.78-0.83 in four hospital validation. The first algorithm did not require clinician input but yielded middling performance. The second showed a trend towards superior performance, though required additional user effort. These methods are alternatives to predictive algorithms downstream of clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing. For hospital early warning algorithms, consideration should be given to bias and usability of various methods.

Identifiers

PMID37910497
PMCPMC10619833
OpenAlexW4388126235

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.