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. 1. Steele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA. 2. Department of Molecular and Functional Genomics, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA. 3. Diagnostic Medicine Institute, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA. 4. Critical Care Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA. 5. Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
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.
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 shockpatients and sepsispatients 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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