Automated digital technologies for supporting sepsis prediction in children: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While there have been several literature reviews on the performance of digital sepsis prediction technologies and clinical decision-support algorithms for adults, there remains a knowledge gap in examining the development of automated technologies for sepsis prediction in children. This scoping review will critically analyse the current evidence on the design and performance of automated digital technologies to predict paediatric sepsis, to advance their development and integration within clinical settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's framework, conducted between February and December 2022. We will further develop the protocol using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. We plan to search the following databases: Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Google Scholar, Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Studies will be included on children >90 days postnatal to <21 years old, predicted to have or be at risk of developing sepsis by a digitalised model or algorithm designed for a clinical setting. Two independent reviewers will complete the abstract and full-text screening and the data extraction. Thematic analysis will be used to develop overarching concepts and present the narrative findings with quantitative results and descriptive statistics displayed in data tables. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this scoping review study of the available literature is not required. We anticipate that the scoping review will identify the current evidence and design characteristics of digital prediction technologies for the timely and accurate prediction of paediatric sepsis and factors influencing clinical integration. We plan to disseminate the preliminary findings from this review at national and international research conferences in global and digital health, gathering critical feedback from multidisciplinary stakeholders. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/veqha/?view_only=f560d4892d7c459ea4cff6dcdfacb086.
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 | 0.123 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.021 |
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".