Systemic inflammatory response syndrome‐based severe sepsis screening algorithms in emergency department patients with suspected sepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)-based severe sepsis screening algorithms have been utilised in stratification and initiation of early broad spectrum antibiotics for patients presenting to EDs with suspected sepsis. We aimed to investigate the performance of some of these algorithms on a cohort of suspected sepsis patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis on an ED-based prospective sepsis registry at a tertiary Sydney hospital, Australia. Definitions for sepsis were based on the 2012 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Numerical values for SIRS criteria and ED investigation results were recorded at the trigger of sepsis pathway on the registry. Performance of specific SIRS-based screening algorithms at sites from USA, Canada, UK, Australia and Ireland health institutions were investigated. RESULTS: Severe sepsis screening algorithms' performance was measured on 747 patients presenting with suspected sepsis (401 with severe sepsis, prevalence 53.7%). Sensitivity and specificity of algorithms to flag severe sepsis ranged from 20.2% (95% CI 16.4-24.5%) to 82.3% (95% CI 78.2-85.9%) and 57.8% (95% CI 52.4-63.1%) to 94.8% (95% CI 91.9-96.9%), respectively. Variations in SIRS values between uncomplicated and severe sepsis cohorts were only minor, except a higher mean lactate (>1.6 mmol/L, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found the Ireland and JFK Medical Center sepsis algorithms performed modestly in stratifying suspected sepsis patients into high-risk groups. Algorithms with lactate levels thresholds of >2 mmol/L rather than >4 mmol/L performed better. ED sepsis registry-based characterisation of patients may help further refine sepsis definitions of the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".