Predicting infection and sepsis; what predictors have been used to train machine learning algorithms? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that is associated with increased mortality. Artificial intelligence tools can inform clinical decision making by flagging patients who may be at risk of developing infection and subsequent sepsis and assist clinicians with their care management. Aim To identify the optimal set of predictors used to train machine learning algorithms to predict the likelihood of an infection and subsequent sepsis and inform clinical decision making. Methods This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42020158685). We searched 3 large databases: Medline, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Embase, using appropriate search terms. We included quantitative primary research studies that focused on sepsis prediction associated with bacterial infection in adult population (>18 years) in all care settings, which included data on predictors to develop machine learning algorithms. The timeframe of the search was 1st January 2000 till the 25th November 2019. Data extraction was performed using a data extraction sheet, and a narrative synthesis of eligible studies was undertaken. Narrative analysis was used to arrange the data into key areas, and compare and contrast between the content of included studies. Quality assessment was performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale, which was used to evaluate the quality of non-randomized studies. Bias was not assessed due to the non-randomised nature of the included studies. Results Fifteen articles met our inclusion criteria (Figure 1). We identified 194 predictors that were used to train machine learning algorithms to predict infection and subsequent sepsis, with 13 predictors used on average across all included studies. The most significant predictors included age, gender, smoking, alcohol intake, heart rate, blood pressure, lactate level, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disease, cancer, chronic kidney disease (eGFR<60ml/min), white blood cell count, liver dysfunction, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), and pre-operative haematocrit < 30%. These predictors were used for the development of all the algorithms in the fifteen articles. All included studies used artificial intelligence techniques to predict the likelihood of sepsis, with average sensitivity 77.5±19.27, and average specificity 69.45±21.25. Conclusion The type of predictors used were found to influence the predictive power and predictive timeframe of the developed machine learning algorithm. Two strengths of our review were that we included studies published since the first definition of sepsis was published in 2001, and identified factors that can improve the predictive ability of algorithms. However, we note that the included studies had some limitations, with three studies not validating the models that they developed, and many tools limited by either their reduced specificity or sensitivity or both. This work has important implications for practice, as predicting the likelihood of sepsis can help inform the management of patients and concentrate finite resources to those patients who are most at risk. Producing a set of predictors can also guide future studies in developing more sensitive and specific algorithms with increased predictive time window to allow for preventive clinical measures.
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 | 0.027 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".