Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38802973›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2024

A scoping review of machine learning for sepsis prediction- feature engineering strategies and model performance: a step towards explainability.

Sherali Bomrah, Mohy Uddin, Umashankar Upadhyay, Matthieu Komorowski, Jyoti Priya, Eshita Dhar, Shih-Chang Hsu, Shabbir Syed-Abdul

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Sherali BomrahGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, No. 291, Zhongzheng Rd, Zhonghe District, New Taipei City, 235, Taiwan.
Mohy UddinResearch Quality Management Section, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs, 11426, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Umashankar UpadhyayGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, No. 291, Zhongzheng Rd, Zhonghe District, New Taipei City, 235, Taiwan.
Matthieu KomorowskiFaculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College of London, South Kensington Campus, London, UK.
Jyoti PriyaGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, No. 291, Zhongzheng Rd, Zhonghe District, New Taipei City, 235, Taiwan.
Eshita DharGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, No. 291, Zhongzheng Rd, Zhonghe District, New Taipei City, 235, Taiwan.
Shih-Chang HsuDepartment of Emergency, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, 106, Taiwan.
Shabbir Syed-AbdulGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, No. 291, Zhongzheng Rd, Zhonghe District, New Taipei City, 235, Taiwan. drshabbir@tmu.edu.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis, an acute and potentially fatal systemic response to infection, significantly impacts global health by affecting millions annually. Prompt identification of sepsis is vital, as treatment delays lead to increased fatalities through progressive organ dysfunction. While recent studies have delved into leveraging Machine Learning (ML) for predicting sepsis, focusing on aspects such as prognosis, diagnosis, and clinical application, there remains a notable deficiency in the discourse regarding feature engineering. Specifically, the role of feature selection and extraction in enhancing model accuracy has been underexplored.

objectivesThis scoping review aims to fulfill two primary objectives: To identify pivotal features for predicting sepsis across a variety of ML models, providing valuable insights for future model development, and To assess model efficacy through performance metrics including AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity.

resultsThe analysis included 29 studies across diverse clinical settings such as Intensive Care Units (ICU), Emergency Departments, and others, encompassing 1,147,202 patients. The review highlighted the diversity in prediction strategies and timeframes. It was found that feature extraction techniques notably outperformed others in terms of sensitivity and AUROC values, thus indicating their critical role in improving sepsis prediction models.

conclusionKey dynamic indicators, including vital signs and critical laboratory values, are instrumental in the early detection of sepsis. Applying feature selection methods significantly boosts model precision, with models like Random Forest and XG Boost showing promising results. Furthermore, Deep Learning models (DL) reveal unique insights, spotlighting the pivotal role of feature engineering in sepsis prediction, which could greatly benefit clinical practice.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSepsisHumansClinical outcomeCritical featuresFeature engineeringMachine learningPerformance evaluationScoping reviewSepsis prediction

Identifiers

PMID38802973
PMCPMC11131234

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.