Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38448999›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2024

Predicting sepsis in-hospital mortality with machine learning: a multi-center study using clinical and inflammatory biomarkers.

Guyu Zhang, Fei Shao, Wei Yuan, Junyuan Wu, Xuan Qi, Jie Gao, Rui Shao, Ziren Tang, Tao Wang

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

9 authors.

Guyu ZhangEmergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China.
Fei ShaoEmergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China.
Wei YuanEmergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China.
Junyuan WuEmergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China.
Xuan QiEmergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China.
Jie GaoEmergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China.
Rui ShaoEmergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China.
Ziren Tang *Emergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China. TangZiren1970@126.com.
Tao Wang *Emergency Medicine Clinical Research Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation, Beijing, 100020, China. wangtao19780117@sina.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to develop and validate an interpretable machine-learning model that utilizes clinical features and inflammatory biomarkers to predict the risk of in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients suffering from sepsis.

methodsWe enrolled all patients diagnosed with sepsis in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV, v.2.0), eICU Collaborative Research Care (eICU-CRD 2.0), and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers databases (AmsterdamUMCdb 1.0.2). LASSO regression was employed for feature selection. Seven machine-learning methods were applied to develop prognostic models. The optimal model was chosen based on its accuracy, F1 score and area under curve (AUC) in the validation cohort. Moreover, we utilized the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method to elucidate the effects of the features attributed to the model and analyze how individual features affect the model's output. Finally, Spearman correlation analysis examined the associations among continuous predictor variables. Restricted cubic splines (RCS) explored potential non-linear relationships between continuous risk factors and in-hospital mortality.

results3535 patients with sepsis were eligible for participation in this study. The median age of the participants was 66 years (IQR, 55-77 years), and 56% were male. After selection, 12 of the 45 clinical parameters collected on the first day after ICU admission remained associated with prognosis and were used to develop machine-learning models. Among seven constructed models, the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model achieved the best performance, with an AUC of 0.94 and an F1 score of 0.937 in the validation cohort. Feature importance analysis revealed that Age, AST, invasive ventilation treatment, and serum urea nitrogen (BUN) were the top four features of the XGBoost model with the most significant impact. Inflammatory biomarkers may have prognostic value. Furthermore, SHAP force analysis illustrated how the constructed model visualized the prediction of the model.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated the potential of machine-learning approaches for early prediction of outcomes in patients with sepsis. The SHAP method could improve the interoperability of machine-learning models and help clinicians better understand the reasoning behind the outcome.

Indexed as

SepsisAgedArea Under CurveBiomarkersFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkersIntensive care unitMachining learningPredictionSepsisXGBoost

Identifiers

PMID38448999
PMCPMC10918942

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.