Literature DB >> 33467539

Early Detection of Septic Shock Onset Using Interpretable Machine Learners.

Debdipto Misra1, Venkatesh Avula2, Donna M Wolk3, Hosam A Farag3, Jiang Li2, Yatin B Mehta4, Ranjeet Sandhu1, Bipin Karunakaran1, Shravan Kethireddy4, Ramin Zand5, Vida Abedi2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Developing a decision support system based on advances in machine learning is one area for strategic innovation in healthcare. Predicting a patient's progression to septic shock is an active field of translational research. The goal of this study was to develop a working model of a clinical decision support system for predicting septic shock in an acute care setting for up to 6 h from the time of admission in an integrated healthcare setting.
METHOD: Clinical data from Electronic Health Record (EHR), at encounter level, were used to build a predictive model for progression from sepsis to septic shock up to 6 h from the time of admission; that is, T = 1, 3, and 6 h from admission. Eight different machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, XGBoost, C5.0, Decision Trees, Boosted Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, Regularized Logistic, and Bayes Generalized Linear Model) were used for model development. Two adaptive sampling strategies were used to address the class imbalance. Data from two sources (clinical and billing codes) were used to define the case definition (septic shock) using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Sepsis criteria. The model assessment was performed using Area under Receiving Operator Characteristics (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity. Model predictions for each feature window (1, 3 and 6 h from admission) were consolidated.
RESULTS: Retrospective data from April 2005 to September 2018 were extracted from the EHR, Insurance Claims, Billing, and Laboratory Systems to create a dataset for septic shock detection. The clinical criteria and billing information were used to label patients into two classes-septic shock patients and sepsis patients at three different time points from admission, creating two different case-control cohorts. Data from 45,425 unique in-patient visits were used to build 96 prediction models comparing clinical-based definition versus billing-based information as the gold standard. Of the 24 consolidated models (based on eight machine learning algorithms and three feature windows), four models reached an AUROC greater than 0.9. Overall, all the consolidated models reached an AUROC of at least 0.8820 or higher. Based on the AUROC of 0.9483, the best model was based on Random Forest, with a sensitivity of 83.9% and specificity of 88.1%. The sepsis detection window at 6 h outperformed the 1 and 3-h windows. The sepsis definition based on clinical variables had improved performance when compared to the sepsis definition based on only billing information.
CONCLUSION: This study corroborated that machine learning models can be developed to predict septic shock using clinical and administrative data. However, the use of clinical information to define septic shock outperformed models developed based on only administrative data. Intelligent decision support tools can be developed and integrated into the EHR and improve clinical outcomes and facilitate the optimization of resources in real-time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  artificial intelligence; clinical decision support system; electronic health record; explainable machine learning; healthcare; interpretable machine learning; machine learning; septic shock

Year:  2021        PMID: 33467539      PMCID: PMC7830968          DOI: 10.3390/jcm10020301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Med        ISSN: 2077-0383            Impact factor:   4.241


  35 in total

1.  Mayo clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (cTAKES): architecture, component evaluation and applications.

Authors:  Guergana K Savova; James J Masanz; Philip V Ogren; Jiaping Zheng; Sunghwan Sohn; Karin C Kipper-Schuler; Christopher G Chute
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock.

Authors:  Anand Kumar; Daniel Roberts; Kenneth E Wood; Bruce Light; Joseph E Parrillo; Satendra Sharma; Robert Suppes; Daniel Feinstein; Sergio Zanotti; Leo Taiberg; David Gurka; Aseem Kumar; Mary Cheang
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.598

3.  Trends in postoperative sepsis: are we improving outcomes?

Authors:  Todd R Vogel; Viktor Y Dombrovskiy; Stephen F Lowry
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.150

4.  The CMS Sepsis Mandate: Right Disease, Wrong Measure.

Authors:  Michael Klompas; Chanu Rhee
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Impact of an electronic sepsis initiative on antibiotic use and health care facility-onset Clostridium difficile infection rates.

Authors:  Robert Hiensch; Jashvant Poeran; Patricia Saunders-Hao; Victoria Adams; Charles A Powell; Allison Glasser; Madhu Mazumdar; Gopi Patel
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 2.918

6.  Piloting electronic medical record-based early detection of inpatient deterioration in community hospitals.

Authors:  Gabriel J Escobar; Benjamin J Turk; Arona Ragins; Jason Ha; Brian Hoberman; Steven M LeVine; Manuel A Ballesca; Vincent Liu; Patricia Kipnis
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.960

Review 7.  Outcome of patients with sepsis and septic shock after ICU treatment.

Authors:  M H Schoenberg; M Weiss; P Radermacher
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.445

8.  Incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults. A multicenter prospective study in intensive care units. French ICU Group for Severe Sepsis.

Authors:  C Brun-Buisson; F Doyon; J Carlet; P Dellamonica; F Gouin; A Lepoutre; J C Mercier; G Offenstadt; B Régnier
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-09-27       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Deep Neural Networks Improve Radiologists' Performance in Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Nan Wu; Jason Phang; Jungkyu Park; Yiqiu Shen; Zhe Huang; Masha Zorin; Stanislaw Jastrzebski; Thibault Fevry; Joe Katsnelson; Eric Kim; Stacey Wolfson; Ujas Parikh; Sushma Gaddam; Leng Leng Young Lin; Kara Ho; Joshua D Weinstein; Beatriu Reig; Yiming Gao; Hildegard Toth; Kristine Pysarenko; Alana Lewin; Jiyon Lee; Krystal Airola; Eralda Mema; Stephanie Chung; Esther Hwang; Naziya Samreen; S Gene Kim; Laura Heacock; Linda Moy; Kyunghyun Cho; Krzysztof J Geras
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 10.  Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Authors:  Lucas M Fleuren; Thomas L T Klausch; Charlotte L Zwager; Linda J Schoonmade; Tingjie Guo; Luca F Roggeveen; Eleonora L Swart; Armand R J Girbes; Patrick Thoral; Ari Ercole; Mark Hoogendoorn; Paul W G Elbers
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 17.440

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision Support in Sepsis.

Authors:  Miao Wu; Xianjin Du; Raymond Gu; Jie Wei
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-05-13

2.  Machine learning predicts cancer subtypes and progression from blood immune signatures.

Authors:  David A Simon Davis; Sahngeun Mun; Julianne M Smith; Dillon Hammill; Jessica Garrett; Katharine Gosling; Jason Price; Hany Elsaleh; Farhan M Syed; Ines I Atmosukarto; Benjamin J C Quah
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Early Prediction of Mortality, Severity, and Length of Stay in the Intensive Care Unit of Sepsis Patients Based on Sepsis 3.0 by Machine Learning Models.

Authors:  Longxiang Su; Zheng Xu; Fengxiang Chang; Yingying Ma; Shengjun Liu; Huizhen Jiang; Hao Wang; Dongkai Li; Huan Chen; Xiang Zhou; Na Hong; Weiguo Zhu; Yun Long
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-06-28

4.  Predicting short and long-term mortality after acute ischemic stroke using EHR.

Authors:  Vida Abedi; Venkatesh Avula; Seyed-Mostafa Razavi; Shreya Bavishi; Durgesh Chaudhary; Shima Shahjouei; Ming Wang; Christoph J Griessenauer; Jiang Li; Ramin Zand
Journal:  J Neurol Sci       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 4.553

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.