Titus A P de Hond1, Wout J Hamelink1, Mark C H de Groot2, Imo E Hoefer2, Jan Jelrik Oosterheert3, Saskia Haitjema2, Karin A H Kaasjager1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine and Acute Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Central Diagnostic Laboratory, Division Laboratory, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic value of the coefficient of variance of axial light loss of monocytes (cv-ALL of monocytes) for adverse clinical outcomes in patients suspected of infection in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We performed an observational, retrospective monocenter study including all medical patients ≥18 years admitted to the ED between September 2016 and June 2019 with suspected infection. Adverse clinical outcomes included 30-day mortality and ICU/MCU admission <3 days after presentation. We determined the additional value of monocyte cv-ALL and compared to frequently used clinical prediction scores (SIRS, qSOFA, MEWS). Next, we developed a clinical model with routinely available parameters at the ED, including cv-ALL of monocytes. RESULTS: A total of 3526 of patients were included. The OR for cv-ALL of monocytes alone was 2.21 (1.98-2.47) for 30-day mortality and 2.07 (1.86-2.29) for ICU/MCU admission <3 days after ED presentation. When cv-ALL of monocytes was combined with a clinical score, the prognostic accuracy increased significantly for all tested scores (SIRS, qSOFA, MEWS). The maximum AUC for a model with routinely available parameters at the ED was 0.81 to predict 30-day mortality and 0.81 for ICU/MCU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Cv-ALL of monocytes is a readily available biomarker that is useful as prognostic marker to predict 30-day mortality. Furthermore, it can be used to improve routine prediction of adverse clinical outcomes at the ED. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR) und number 6916.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic value of the coefficient of variance of axial light loss of monocytes (cv-ALL of monocytes) for adverse clinical outcomes in patients suspected of infection in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We performed an observational, retrospective monocenter study including all medical patients ≥18 years admitted to the ED between September 2016 and June 2019 with suspected infection. Adverse clinical outcomes included 30-day mortality and ICU/MCU admission <3 days after presentation. We determined the additional value of monocyte cv-ALL and compared to frequently used clinical prediction scores (SIRS, qSOFA, MEWS). Next, we developed a clinical model with routinely available parameters at the ED, including cv-ALL of monocytes. RESULTS: A total of 3526 of patients were included. The OR for cv-ALL of monocytes alone was 2.21 (1.98-2.47) for 30-day mortality and 2.07 (1.86-2.29) for ICU/MCU admission <3 days after ED presentation. When cv-ALL of monocytes was combined with a clinical score, the prognostic accuracy increased significantly for all tested scores (SIRS, qSOFA, MEWS). The maximum AUC for a model with routinely available parameters at the ED was 0.81 to predict 30-day mortality and 0.81 for ICU/MCU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Cv-ALL of monocytes is a readily available biomarker that is useful as prognostic marker to predict 30-day mortality. Furthermore, it can be used to improve routine prediction of adverse clinical outcomes at the ED. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR) und number 6916.
Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection [1]. It is a clinical syndrome that is known to have high morbidity and mortality rates [2, 3]. Unfortunately, no accurate diagnostic tools are available for early recognition of sepsis [4-7]. Clinical prediction scores (e.g. SIRS, (q)SOFA or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS)) have been developed for recognition of severely ill patients in an Emergency Department (ED) setting [1, 4, 8–10] but poorly predict adverse clinical outcomes [11-14]. In addition, these scores consist of different patient characteristics that need to be collected manually and processed in the electronic health record (EHR) system to perform optimally. Moreover, scores such as the MEWS were not specifically developed in the context of sepsis, but rather to predict outcome in a range of critically ill patients [11, 15]. Therefore, there is a continuous need for easy, accurate and cheap accessible biomarkers for prediction of adverse clinical outcomes in sepsis patients, especially early in the course of the disease. Recently, numerous biomarkers have been identified, but these are mostly costly and therefore complicate the chase for value-based healthcare.Leukocytes play a key role in the inflammatory host response to infection [16, 17] and are therefore used as biomarker for the disease [18]. Nevertheless, leukocytes are nonspecific and consist of multiple cell subsets [17, 19] that may be more specific and more accurate biomarkers for sepsis [17]. Specifically monocytes, as part of the innate immune system, play a crucial role in the very early stage of sepsis [20, 21]. In early stages of sepsis monocytes are activated and undergo morphological changes [21, 22] that may be useful for early identification of the disease. Recently, Monocyte Distribution Width (MDW) was suggested as an early sepsis indicator [22-27]. A downside to MDW as a biomarker is the requirement of a specific costly analyzer [22]. Another approach to calculate the variety in monocyte size uses the flow cytometry principle within existing hematology analyzers to assess leukocyte subsets. The axial light loss (ALL) or ‘shadow’ that is routinely obtained as a cell passes the laser light inside the machine during such a measurement can be seen as a proxy of cell size. In raw hematology data ALLs are available as means with accompanying coefficients for different subsets of leukocytes. Coefficient of variance of axial light loss of monocytes (cv-ALL of monocytes) can be seen as a way to express variety in monocytic volumetric size, and is thereby very much comparable to MDW.Therefore, we used readily available cv-ALL of monocytes to study monocyte characteristics as a biomarker for clinical outcome. We hypothesized that cv-ALL of monocytes is a valuable biomarker to predict clinical adverse outcomes in patients that are suspected of an infection at the ED.
2. Methods
2.1 Study design
We performed an observational retrospective cohort study on data from the SPACE-cohort (SePsis in the Acutely ill patients in the Emergency department) [28] that was collected between September 2016 and September 2019. The SPACE-cohort includes all patients with suspected infection presenting in the ED of the University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU) that fulfill the following 2 inclusion criteria: ≥18 years, and presenting for the internal medicine department or one of its subspecialities. No other in- or exclusion criteria are used.All patients in the SPACE-cohort were assessed for the presence of sepsis. If sepsis was suspected a sepsis care pathway was initiated, resulting in protocolized care. Non-septic patients received standard of care treatment according to their clinical situation. The SPACE-cohort was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the UMCU under number 16/594 and registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR) under number 6916.
2.2 Data collection
The treating physician at the ED is always asked by the EHR system whether the patient is suspected of an infection and whether it could be sepsis in our center. If both questions are answered positively, the system automatically calculates the SIRS and qSOFA scores using the first set of vital parameters obtained during the ED visit. If no such parameters are available in the system, lacking parameters can be added manually. When at least one of the scores is abnormal, the physician is alerted by a screen warning message. These patients were automatically included in the SPACE cohort.As secondary quality check for completeness of the SPACE cohort, independent trained clinicians screened all patient records of ED visits for the suspicion of infection and/or sepsis if registration via the clinical pathway was absent. If an infectious cause was mentioned in the differential diagnosis, patients received antibiotics, or bacterial cultures were taken these patients were considered to be suspected of infection and were also included in the SPACE-cohort.For all included patients, data concerning demographics, vital parameters, antibiotics, comorbidities, and outcome was collected manually and supplemented with automated queries for laboratory variables to calculate cv-ALL of monocytes. Data on vital parameters included all parameters to calculate clinical prediction scores (SIRS, qSOFA, MEWS) and follow-up data on morbidity and mortality included microbiological diagnostics, chosen treatment, hospitalization, and length of stay). Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used for the collection of comorbidities [29].
2.3 Biochemical parameters
Standardized blood draw was performed at the ED including a complete blood count (CBC). In the UMC Utrecht, raw data including the full optical parameters of each measured individual blood cell is extracted automatically from the hematological analyzer (Abbott CELL-DYN Sapphire) and stored into the Utrecht Patient Oriented Database (UPOD). The structure and content of UPOD have been described in more detail elsewhere [30]. From this raw data we extracted the cv-ALL of monocytes.
2.4 Outcomes
The primary outcome of this study was 30-day all-cause mortality [31, 32] and secondary endpoints were Medium Care Unit (MCU) or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission <3 days after ED presentation. For the secondary outcome, all patients with an ICU-restrictive policy were excluded.
2.5 Statistical analyses
Normally distributed continuous data are expressed as a mean with standard deviation (SD). Non-parametric data are shown as median and interquartile range (IQR). Student’s t test was used to compare normally distributed continuous parameters, while a Mann Whitney U test was used for non-parametric continuous variables. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-Square or Fisher’s exact test, depending on variable size. We used a predictive mean matching multiple imputation approach for missing values. All included vital, laboratory and outcome parameters that were used in our analyses were used. Concerning data points on laboratory variables, hospital admission, and clinical course, all used parameters had missing data <1%. This was also the case for all used vital parameters, except for respiratory rate (missing 25.8%). No data on demographics were missing.We studied the association between cv-ALL of monocytes and outcomes using binary logistic regression models. First, we compared the predictive value of cv-ALL of monocytes to frequently used clinical prediction scores (SIRS, qSOFA, MEWS). The optimal cut-off point for cv-ALL of monocytes was calculated via Youden’s statistic. Next, we tested the additional value of cv-ALL of monocytes on top of these scores. We assessed additional value using likelihood ratio tests. Finally, using stepwise regression via backward selection, we combined all individual parameters from the clinical scores, patient characteristics, and cv-ALL of monocytes to come up with a clinical model with easily accessible parameters. Prognostic accuracy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses and reported as area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals. Calibration curves were constructed with R Statistical Software, version 4.0.3. The following packages were used: haven, tidyverse, and rms. IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 was used for all other analyses and p-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
3. Results
3.1 Patient characteristics
A total of 3526 patients were enrolled. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the cohort. Patients were on average 61.0 years old (53.4% male). Median of cv-ALL of monocytes in the whole cohort was 0.077 (IQR 0.070–0.088). Cv-ALL of monocytes was associated with disease severity (S1 and S2 Figs). The magnitude of cv-ALL of monocytes increases in sicker patients (S1 Fig). The percentage of patients with a high cv-ALL of monocytes measurement increased if SIRS, qSOFA or MEWS get higher (S2 Fig). Additionally, we hypothesized that cv-ALL of monocytes might differ between immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised patients and indeed, there was a significant difference between these two groups (S3 Fig).
Table 1
Baseline table of the SPACE population.
Total (n = 3526)
Survivors (n = 3304)
Non-survivors (n = 222)
P-value
Demographic
Age–yr–median (IQR)
61.0 (48.0–70.0)
61.0 (46.0–70.0)
68.0 (59.0–75.0)
<0.001
Sex, male (%)
1884 (53.4)
1735 (52.5)
149 (67.1)
<0.001
CCI (≥ 5) (%)
1683 (47.7)
1503 (45.5)
180 (81.1)
<0.001
Specialties
<0.001
Internal medicine (%)
1088 (30.9)
1029 (31.1)
59 (26.6)
Nephrology (%)
571 (16.2)
559 (16.9)
12 (5.4)
Oncology (%)
615 (17.4)
536 (16.2)
79 (35.6)
Hematology (%)
574 (16.3)
531 (16.1)
43 (19.4)
Rheumatology (%)
207 (5.9)
200 (6.1)
7 (3.2)
Endocrinology (%)
124 (3.5)
123 (3.7)
1 (0.5)
Infectious diseases (%)
74 (2.1)
73 (2.2)
1 (0.5)
Other (%)
273 (7.7)
253 (7.7)
20 (9.0)
Clinical scores
SIRS score ≥2 (%)
2194 (62.2)
2025 (61.3)
169 (76.1)
<0.001
qSOFA score ≥2 (%)
195 (5.5)
154 (4.7)
41 (18.5)
<0.001
MEWS ≥5 (%)
498 (14.1)
425 (12.9)
73 (32.9)
<0.001
Timing of antibiotics
<0.001
No antibiotics
2136 (60.6)
2051 (62.1)
85 (38.3)
<1 hour
148 (4.2)
129 (3.9)
19 (8.6)
1–3 hours
568 (16.1)
515 (15.6)
53 (23.9)
>3 hours
674 (19.1)
609 (18.4)
65 (29.3)
Clinical course
Hospital admission (%)
2307 (65.4)
2113 (64.0)
194 (87.4)
<0.001
Length of stay–days–median (IQR)
4.7 (2.7–8.7)
4.7 (2.7–8.5)
5.6 (2.5–12.7)
0.069
Cv-ALL of monocytes
Median cv-ALL of monocytes (IQR)
0.077 (0.070–0.088)
0.077 (0.070–0.088)
0.084 (0.073–0.098)
<0.001
CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; cv-ALL, coefficient of variance of axial light loss
CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; cv-ALL, coefficient of variance of axial light loss
3.2 Primary outcome
The overall 30-day mortality was 6.3% (222/3526 patients). The median cv-ALL of monocytes in survivors and non-survivors was 0.077 (IQR 0.070–0.088) vs 0.084 (IQR 0.073–0.098), p <0.001. The optimal cut-off point to predict 30-day mortality was 0.085. This dichotomization resulted in an OR of 2.21 (95% CI 1.98–2.47, Table 2). Based on the likelihood ratio tests, cv-ALL of monocytes had an additional predictive value to every clinical prediction score (Fig 1A, Table 3). The best multivariable logistic regression model contained cv-ALL of monocytes, age, sex, CCI, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale, heart rate, white blood cell count and body temperature as independent factors associated with 30-day mortality. The corresponding ROC curves are shown in Fig 2A, with an AUC for this model of 0.81. Calibration curve of the optimal model is shown in S4 Fig with R2 of 0.209 and Brier score of 0.054.
Table 2
Univariate logistic regression for 30-day mortality.
Predictor
OR (95% CI)
p-Value
30-day mortality
cv-ALL (≥0.085)
2.21 (1.98–2.47)
<0.001
SIRS (≥2)
1.88 (1.65–2.14)
<0.001
qSOFA (≥2)
4.57 (3.932–5.32)
<0.001
MEWS (≥5)
3.06 (2.72–3.46)
<0.001
ICU/MCU admission <3 days
cv-ALL (≥0.088)
2.07 (1.86–2.29)
<0.001
SIRS (≥2)
3.32 (2.89–3.80)
<0.001
qSOFA (≥2)
10.10 (8.82–11.56)
<0.001
MEWS (≥5)
5.60 (5.04–6.22)
<0.001
cv-ALL, Coefficient of Variance Axial Light Loss; qSOFA, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Fig 1
ROC curves to predict 30-day mortality (A) and ICU/MCU admission <3 days after ED presentation (B). The AUC of cv-ALL of monocytes to predict 30-day mortality (AUC = 0.61) was higher than the AUC of the clinical scores SIRS (AUC = 0.57) and qSOFA (AUC = 0.57), and comparable to MEWS (AUC = 0.61). For the prediction of ICU/MCU admission the AUC of cv-ALL of monocytes (AUC = 0.60) was slightly lower than the AUC of the clinical scores: SIRS (AUC = 0.61), qSOFA (AUC = 0.62), and MEWS (AUC = 0.66).
Table 3
AUC of clinical prediction scores with(out) cv-ALL of monocytes.
Predictor
AUC
LRT
30-day mortality
cv-ALL
0.61
-
SIRS (≥2)
0.57
SIRS + cv-ALL
0.62
<0.001
qSOFA (≥2)
0.57
qSOFA + cv-ALL
0.64
<0.001
MEWS (≥5)
0.60
MEWS + cv-ALL
0.65
<0.001
ICU/MCU admission <3 days
cv-ALL
0.60
-
SIRS (≥2)
0.61
SIRS + cv-ALL
0.66
<0.001
qSOFA (≥2)
0.62
qSOFA + cv-ALL
0.66
<0.001
MEWS (≥5)
0.66
MEWS + cv-ALL
0.70
<0.001
cv-ALL, Coefficient of Variance Axial Light Loss; LRT, Likelihood Ratio Test; qSOFA, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Fig 2
ROC curves of the prediction of 30-day mortality (A) and ICU/MCU admission within 3 days after ED presentation (B). The optimal model consisted of the following parameters: cv-ALL of monocytes, age, sex, CCI, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale, heart rate, leukocyte count, and body temperature. The AUC of the optimal model for prediction of 30-day mortality was 0.81 and for ICU/MCU admission <3 days 0.81 as well.
ROC curves to predict 30-day mortality (A) and ICU/MCU admission <3 days after ED presentation (B). The AUC of cv-ALL of monocytes to predict 30-day mortality (AUC = 0.61) was higher than the AUC of the clinical scores SIRS (AUC = 0.57) and qSOFA (AUC = 0.57), and comparable to MEWS (AUC = 0.61). For the prediction of ICU/MCU admission the AUC of cv-ALL of monocytes (AUC = 0.60) was slightly lower than the AUC of the clinical scores: SIRS (AUC = 0.61), qSOFA (AUC = 0.62), and MEWS (AUC = 0.66).ROC curves of the prediction of 30-day mortality (A) and ICU/MCU admission within 3 days after ED presentation (B). The optimal model consisted of the following parameters: cv-ALL of monocytes, age, sex, CCI, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale, heart rate, leukocyte count, and body temperature. The AUC of the optimal model for prediction of 30-day mortality was 0.81 and for ICU/MCU admission <3 days 0.81 as well.cv-ALL, Coefficient of Variance Axial Light Loss; qSOFA, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.cv-ALL, Coefficient of Variance Axial Light Loss; LRT, Likelihood Ratio Test; qSOFA, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
3.3 Secondary outcome
Within 3 days after ED visit, 8.6% (303/3526 patients) were admitted to MCU and/or ICU. The optimal cut-off point for cv-ALL of monocytes was 0.088, corresponding with an OR of 2.07 (95% CI 1.86–2.29, Table 2). The AUC for cv-ALL of monocytes was lower than for SIRS, qSOFA, and MEWS (AUC 0.60 vs 0.61 vs 0.62 vs 0.66 respectively, Fig 1B, Table 3). Again, cv-ALL of monocytes added significantly to the model performance of each clinical score (Table 3). In multivariable regression analysis cv-ALL of monocytes, age, sex, CCI, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale, heart rate, white blood count and body temperature were independent predictors for ICU/MCU admission <3 days after ED presentation. The maximum AUC for this model was 0.81 (Fig 2B), with calibration curve shown in S4 Fig (R2 = 0.220; Brier score = 0.070). Unlike for our primary outcome, CCI was negatively correlated with ICU/MCU admission, meaning a higher CCI was associated with a lower chance of being admitted to the ICU/MCU <3 days.
4. Discussion
This is the first study that investigated cv-ALL of monocytes as a biomarker to predict adverse clinical outcomes in patients suspected of an infection at the ED. Our results show that cv-ALL of monocytes could be a usable predictor for both 30-day mortality and MCU/ICU admission for patients that present at the ED and are suspected of an infection. Moreover, cv-ALL of monocytes has additional value to predict mortality and MCU/ICU requirements to the commonly used clinical prediction scores.Recently, there have been numerous publications on MDW in the context of sepsis [22-27]. However, all previous MDW studies investigated the diagnostic value of MDW for sepsis, rather than its prognostic value. Therefore, it is hard to compare these diagnostic MDW studies with our prognostic study on the cv-ALL of monocytes. A careful comparison can be made, since patients with the diagnosis sepsis are known to have higher adverse outcome rates than patients with less severe conditions [3, 33, 34]. In previous studies, MDW was found able to distinguish SIRS from sepsis-2 [22, 23] as well as to diagnose sepsis based on the sepsis-3 definition with AUCs ranging from 0.73–0.87 [24-26]. In line with this, we found that high values for cv-ALL of monocytes correlate with an increasing risk for adverse clinical outcomes. Additionally, MDW elevation was correlated with infection severity [25, 35] and low values of MDW had strong negative predictive values in the context of sepsis (87–97%, [25-27]). This is similar to our study, which shows that clinically sicker patients have higher cv-ALL of monocytes values.There are several reasons why cv-ALL of monocytes should be preferred above MDW. Cv-ALL of monocytes is readily available and easily accessible as it can be extracted from a routine hematological analyzer. Consequently, we did not have to perform an extra lab test or buy an extra machine. This implicates major clinical advantages compared to measuring MDW: cv-ALL of monocytes does not require technical knowledge or laboratory space, and is cheaper. Since the essence of the test is so similar to the measurement of MDW and since our results point in the same direction to previous results, it is likely that cv-ALL of monocytes can replace MDW.Our study has some limitations. First, we imputed missing data of some of the variables, up to 25% for respiratory rate. This may have influenced the performance of our models. We acknowledge that these data may not be missing completely at random. Yet, because severely ill patients have more complete EHR records [36], it is likely that in less severely ill patients more imputation was required. Therefore, undocumented abnormal respiratory rates in less severely ill patients might be imputated within the normal range. Because of this, we only believe that imputation could have led to underestimation of our results. Second, the study was performed at the UMCU, a large tertiary hospital that is known for its relatively large population of immunocompromised patients. In a subanalysis, cv-ALL of monocytes differed significantly between immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised patients, indicating that immunosuppression affects cv-ALL of monocyte values. Nonetheless, even in this academic population cv-ALL of monocytes appears to be a predictor for adverse clinical outcomes. At last, we show that multivariate models can achieve good AUCs to predict outcome. However, both calibration plots show overestimation in high risk patients, which might be due to the low number of patients with high prediction scores. Therefore, except for ruling out, these models would not be suitable for clinical implementation yet.There are a few specific strengths to this study. First, current sepsis guidelines advise using qSOFA in the ED setting to predict clinical outcome as opposed to using it as a diagnostic tool [1, 13]. Adding this to the absence of a gold standard to diagnose sepsis at the ED, we decided upon a prognostic study with well-defined outcome measurements rather than a diagnostic design. Moreover, the SPACE-cohort has a well-defined and clinically relevant patient domain, namely all patients at the ED that are suspected of an infection. The heterogeneity resulting from this cohort might explain the relatively low performances of the clinical scores, when compared to other literature [11, 14].
5. Conclusion
This study shows that cv-ALL of monocytes is a valuable predictor for 30-day mortality and MCU/ICU requirement <3 days after ED visit in patients suspected of infection at the ED. The clinical performance is likely to be equal to MDW. Nevertheless, cv-ALL of monocytes has multiple practical advantages compared to MDW, making cv-ALL of monocytes more preferable.
Cv-ALL of monocytes is associated with disease severity.
SIRS (A), qSOFA (B), and MEWS (C) score and height of cv-ALL of monocytes is shown. A one-way ANOVA was performed to test group differences. Significance testing was done by Tukey’s test. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.High cv-ALL of monocytes percentage for SIRS (A), qSOFA (B), and MEWS (C) scores. High cv-ALL of monocytes was defined as the cut-off value for our clinical model to predict 30-day mortality (0.085). P-values were calculated with a X-square test.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
Cv-ALL of monocytes in non-immunocompromised (-) and immunocompromised (+) patients.
Cv-ALL of monocytes differed significantly between these two groups. P-value was calculated by a Mann-Whitney U test.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.Optimal model calibration plots for 30-day mortality (A) and ICU/MCU admission <3 days (B). The dashed line shows the calibration plot for the optimal models. The model for 30-day mortality has R2 of 0.209 and Brier score of 0.054, while the model for ICU/MCU admission <3 days shows R2 of 0.220 and Brier score of 0.070.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.13 Apr 2022
PONE-D-21-39689
Axial light loss of monocytes as a readily available prognostic biomarker in patients with suspected infection at the emergency department
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. de Hond,Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
This is an interesting paper that offers promising preliminary results in an important subject area. In addition to the reviewer comments, please consider the following in your revisions:
-can you explain what "semi-automated" data collection is? how much was done by computer vs hand and whas there any manual checking of data pulled automatically?
-please include a detailed explanation of missing data
-please describe the multiple imputation process in more detail
-please include details about model calibration
-the discussion is well-written overall and makes some very good points. however, i think that the tone is a bit too conclusive in that this is a single retrospective study from a single center. In addition, automated variable selection techniques are notorious for creating over-fit models--while i think this is a reasonable first step, i do not think these data can be considered definitive. furthermore, prospective validation is definitely needed before this should be used in routine clinical practice. i would recommend that the discussion be modified slightly to reflect this fact.
Please submit your revised manuscript by May 28 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regards,Robert Ehrman, MD, MSAcademic EditorPLOS ONEJournal Requirements:When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found athttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf andhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes********** 5. Review Comments to the AuthorPlease use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: PONE-D-21-39689It is a little unclear whether or not all the patients in the study timeframe were included if they were >=18 and had a suspected infection or whether or not it required an abnormal SIRS or qSOFA score.This was a post-hoc analysis of a prospectively collected database and blood samples. The cv-ALL contributed to improving the performance of know disease severity scores. That said the baseline characteristics of the survivors vs. non-survivors were not balanced. The OR of qSOFA and MEWS was much more robust for the selected outcomes that cv-ALL alone.Was lactate included in the analysis? cv-ALL is independent of overall WBC? It would suggest yes – given that they are both in the final model, however one would think there is significant interaction b/w these variables.What is the rationale for a higher CCI being less likely to be admitted to the MCU/ICU – is it related to ICU-restrictions of these patients?I would have liked to see some basic data concerning process measures such as time to antibiotics which is strongly correlated with outcome in the sicker sepsis/septic shock patients.This is an interesting response to the MDW theme and offers an alternative that may be more accessible and affordable to institutions interested in pursing such options.********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
30 May 2022All raised questions by the academic editor and reviewers were answered in the attached rebuttal letter entitled "response to reviewers".Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docxClick here for additional data file.8 Jun 2022
PONE-D-21-39689R1
Axial light loss of monocytes as a readily available prognostic biomarker in patients with suspected infection at the emergency department
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. de Hond,Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.Thank you for taking the time to revise the manuscript--I think that it is substantially improved.
My remaining concern relates to non-reporting of model calibration in the current iteration of the paper (NB: HL test is a goodness of fit measure rather than one of calibration). To me, regardless of how (or even if) one intends prediction models to be used, calibration is an important data point to include--calibration and discrimination (eg, AUC) go hand-in-hand. This is also the recommendation from TRIPOD guidelines (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/tripod-statement/). Please see the reference below for a more detail description of why I (and others) feel calibration is of great import.
I would also note that sub-optimal model calibration, in and of itself, would in no way preclude publication. if this were the case, it would be an important limitation to address/discuss. i think that this study has value to add to the medical literature and that it is important that results be reported fully and transparently so that researchers who take up this subject matter have as much information as possible when planning and executing further studies.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regards,Robert Ehrman, MD, MSAcademic EditorPLOS ONEJournal Requirements:Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]Reviewers' comments:[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
16 Jun 2022The response is given in the file titled "Response to reviewers".Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docxClick here for additional data file.20 Jun 2022Axial light loss of monocytes as a readily available prognostic biomarker in patients with suspected infection at the emergency departmentPONE-D-21-39689R2Dear Dr. de Hond,We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.Kind regards,Robert Ehrman, MD, MSAcademic EditorPLOS ONEAdditional Editor Comments (optional):Reviewers' comments:1 Jul 2022PONE-D-21-39689R2Axial light loss of monocytes as a readily available prognostic biomarker in patients with suspected infection at the emergency departmentDear Dr. de Hond:I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.Kind regards,PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staffon behalf ofDr. Robert R EhrmanAcademic EditorPLOS ONE
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A C Muller Kobold; J E Tulleken; J G Zijlstra; W Sluiter; J Hermans; C G Kallenberg; J W Tervaert Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Elliott D Crouser; Joseph E Parrillo; Christopher Seymour; Derek C Angus; Keri Bicking; Liliana Tejidor; Robert Magari; Diana Careaga; JoAnna Williams; Douglas R Closser; Michael Samoszuk; Luke Herren; Emily Robart; Fernando Chaves Journal: Chest Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Carolin Fleischmann; Daniel O Thomas-Rueddel; Michael Hartmann; Christiane S Hartog; Tobias Welte; Steffen Heublein; Ulf Dennler; Konrad Reinhart Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: R Menéndez; A Torres; S Reyes; R Zalacain; A Capelastegui; J Aspa; L Borderías; J J Martín-Villasclaras; S Bello; I Alfageme; F R de Castro; J Rello; L Molinos; J Ruiz-Manzano Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Thomas Rimmelé; Didier Payen; Vincenzo Cantaluppi; John Marshall; Hernando Gomez; Alonso Gomez; Patrick Murray; John A Kellum Journal: Shock Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Elliott D Crouser; Joseph E Parrillo; Greg S Martin; David T Huang; Pierre Hausfater; Ilya Grigorov; Diana Careaga; Tiffany Osborn; Mohamad Hasan; Liliana Tejidor Journal: J Intensive Care Date: 2020-05-05