Computer-aided National Early Warning Score to predict the risk of sepsis following emergency medical admission to hospital: a model development and external validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In hospitals in England, patients' vital signs are monitored and summarized into the National Early Warning Score (NEWS); this score is more accurate than the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score at identifying patients with sepsis. We investigated the extent to which the accuracy of the NEWS is enhanced by developing and comparing 3 computer-aided NEWS (cNEWS) models (M0 = NEWS alone, M1 = M0 + age + sex, M2 = M1 + subcomponents of NEWS + diastolic blood pressure) to predict the risk of sepsis. METHODS: We included all emergency medical admissions of patients 16 years of age and older discharged over 24 months from 2 acute care hospital centres (York Hospital [YH] for model development and a combined data set from 2 hospitals [Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital and Scunthorpe General Hospital] in the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole National Health Service Foundation Trust [NH] for external model validation). We used a validated Canadian method for defining sepsis from administrative hospital data. RESULTS: The prevalence of sepsis was lower in YH (4.5%, 1596/35 807) than in NH (8.5%, 2983/35 161). The C statistic increased across models (YH: M0 0.705, M1 0.763, M2 0.777; NH: M0 0.708, M1 0.777, M2 0.791). For NEWS of 5 or higher, sensitivity increased (YH: 47.24% v. 50.56% v. 52.69%; NH: 37.91% v. 43.35% v. 48.07%), the positive likelihood ratio increased (YH: 2.77 v. 2.99 v. 3.06; NH: 3.18 v. 3.32 v. 3.45) and the positive predictive value increased (YH: 11.44% v. 12.24% v. 12.49%; NH: 22.75% v. 23.55% v. 24.21%). INTERPRETATION: From the 3 cNEWS models, model M2 is the most accurate. Given that it places no additional burden of data collection on clinicians and can be automated, it may now be carefully introduced and evaluated in hospitals with sufficient informatics infrastructure.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".